Title is pretty self explanatory. Firstly, don't jump the gun, read what is being said with thought is what I ask. Arguing about something that hasn't even been said leads nowhere.
This is a rant and an attempt to understand some really flawed logic at the same time. This is all in the context of how the game currently is, what it could be is another topic as I am only interested in the logic that pertains to what and how things are right now, which is pretty much always the case with complaints. Reading this forum you can quickly see the general consesus of there being around 3 viable codices in the entire game ( Tau, Eldar, Necron. ) Everything else is supposedly crap, or mediocre at best. Not true, and here's why.
Complaining about codices in a stand-alone context
There is no point about complaining that your Astra Militarum can't handle Space Marines allied with The Wolves Unleashed on their own. There is no point to being pissed about your Blood Angels not being able to beat 3 Flyrants allied with Adamantine Lance. Why? Here's why:
Most of the complaining happens in a competitive context ( you don't need a competitive list for casual games, they are casual games, and that's it. ) However, who plays competitively with a mono Codex these days? Perhaps Necrons occasionally, but even the top Necron lists tend to have something allied. That's about it. Every competent IoM player uses the allied matrix to allow their list powerful combinations or counters to things their Codex can't handle on their own. So why even complain that in a competitive enviroment my Codex can't take on anyone mono, when no one plays mono competitively? And if you play casually you don't need a competitive list. There is simply no way out of this one so it's use as an argument could just aswell be stopped as it's based on a paradox as a whole. Secondly, the Tau and Eldar codices remain updated and their next iterations will surely be brought down in power asfar as I'm concerned. We should see how things are then, and it's supposed to happen this year.
Either complain in a casual context where there is no need for competitiveness, or talk in the competitive context where monocodex armies are rarely played and triumph even less, making complaining about a monocodex builds power abysmally pointless. You don't get to pick the worst of both, unless you want to be paradoxical ofcourse. But we can't have that, since we're all pseudointellectual experts of pretty much everything around here.
You can have competitive Blood Angels. You can have competitive Astra Militarum. You can have competitive Sisters of Battle. Because in this game, currently, you play competitive lists with allies and multiple detachments and codices, and that's that.
Complaining that a unit is not competitive
Yet another bit you see all the time. Certainly true with units that are undeniably bad ( Mutilators, I'm looking at you ) but almost daily you can see someone saying a unit that can infact perform being useless. Most of the time I attribute this to the player just being clueless on how to play such a unit on a general level, let alone with a synergized army. However there is a clear persisting mindset among your average players, that are really nothing special. Those who make up 98% of us wargamers, myself included. It would appear people judge a units effectiveness or how competitive it is based on an enviroment they themselves will never ever actually be in. This ever receeding, counter argument dodging bubble of ignorance, based on a theorized match inwhich the opponent is a perfect computer of a man ( yes, that's intentional ) and makes no mistake, countering everything you do perfectly, rendering unit in question useless.
Guess what? You're most likely the 98%. You're not in the top tables of ETC competing against Nick Nanavati in tooth and nail matches of tactical genius. No, you're most likely participating in local tournaments, playing with your friends, or even participating in the larger tournaments but never reaching the absolute top. So why do you judge a units competitiveness based on like you were? It's oxymoronic. Your friends mostly aren't 5 Sean Naydens either, they are also the 98% who make mistakes, not to mention the countless other factors affecting the course of a game. If you think you can't win with Blood Angels because the hypothetical Nickean Naydenvati hybrid android will crush you in his/its perfect match where everything goes the way you think it goes before the match has even taken place, fix your brain, because you're thinking wrong and not even remotely realistically.
I've beaten many general cookiecutter competitive lists with my Blood Angels. There is a Tau & Eldar player in my group that has beaten me once ( my Dark Angels, Blood Angels and CSM that is. ) I've seen Daemonkin already basically walk over a Reclamation Legion with Canoptek Harvest. I've been beaten by 9 Khorne Blood Slaughterers while playing my tournament Chaos Daemons. I've seen a Tau player win a local tournament with his casual Tau list by just being a good player, without a single Riptide, against armies such as gravspam White Scars. I've had an experienced Astra Militarum player dominate me with a mono codex list while wielding my Necrons with the previous Codex. I've seen amazing out of the box combinations dominate the cookiecutter in the biggest tournaments in the world. Stuff happens, and the stuff that doesn't work in the top tables of the largest tournaments of the world doesn't mean they don't work for you. You're most likely not in the 2%, so start thinking in your own context, where you and most of your opponents are the 98%. Why think that something will never work in a gaming enviroment you will never ever be in most likely. I press again, this only considering units that can actually perform when their user isn't a complete tool, not things like Mutilators. Personally I play the underdog armies as I find it fun. I also think the best way to develop as a player is to learn to deal with the most opfotm gak with some of the lowest powered codices around. You will then eventually learn to deal with said challenges while having the most barebone tools. Now imagine what happens when you then switch to a top tier Codex with an equally cheesy build? Exactly, you will crush the opponent who is used to his fancy tools. How could you not, you've done it before with a crappier army already.
The funniest bit. The 2% make things like Lictors and Scouts win in the top tables, the very units the 98% complain about, and that makes them the 2%. A fact.
...And all of this can be directed to the same conclusion: Gee Dubs writers are incompetent pieces of who don't know how to write codices well. Their focus is lost on the actual gaming, and are only a toy selling company.
The talk about balance is ultimately redundant because of this.
I disagree about the focus being lost on gaming, as I don't draw conclusions from a single official statement made by someone who is heavily business oriented and most likely not very well in touch with the game design department of the big company that is Games Workshop.
Meaning it's just a general, ignorant statement that probably a large amount of designers within the company disagree with and in no way reflects a companywide absolute truth. I don't even toy with the idea that the game designers are having the mindset of just selling toys, it's just too absurd. The upper management who are all about the business perhaps might have such an idea in their heads. You can see this same phenomenon in vaurious other companies and fields, such as advertising. The suits just think money, the actual creators think quality content to best of their ability, this I've seen in practice myself.
I also disagree about everything being the companys fault; some players really are clueless and can't make things work that actually could.
I also think there are clear signs of the focus shifting with the new CEO. But that's your opinion, and you're entitled to it, and a completely different topic at that. I agree however, that their playtesting and ruleswriting needs to be better. A public betatest similiar to PP would probably do the trick, but that's not gonna happen.
From personal experience in doing well in tournaments:
The end of game roll going your way at the right time can totally trump list quality differences. I won a pro-painted knight from an ITC event with BA land raiders thanks to a few of those rolls.
People have the right to complain about the balance. Say what you want about " forging the narrative", the gamers crave a competitive and balanced game. Its what people have been wanting for years and there is just no excuse for GW to keep these idiot game designers employed.
The problem is that there are some people out there that are delusional about the problem. They are either:
a) a GW employee or fanboy
b) someone who plays a top tier army such as Eldar, Tau, or Necrons
c) someone who plays a strong mid tier army such as grey Knights.
I mean, don't talk about balance if you've never payed 15 points to give a ig sarge a power sword lol. And that is the problem with the game, that GW would hold such things as an iron halo so highly....an incredibly rare and powerful item, but then give a whole frigging army an even better invul that is re animation protocol. And then you have a whole army of guys getting 2 saves instead of 1. Or how about armies like Tau getting 2 shooting phases and 2 movement phases.
Then idiots like the person who wrote this thread will say things like " well you shoulda brought 25 lascanons if you want to kill those riptides".
I mean, people that defend the balance are sort of like those people in Christopher Columbus times that argued that the Earth is flat. They will watch a Necrons army table an ork player and lose only 2 models, but that is just not enough evidence for them.
Most of the complaining happens in a competitive context ( you don't need a competitive list for casual games, they are casual games, and that's it. ) However, who plays competitively with a mono Codex these days?
What was the last major tournament and what was the armies used within it? Out of curiosity more then anything else.
RunicFIN wrote: ( you don't need a competitive list for casual games, they are casual games, and that's it. )
And this is where everything else you have to say becomes invalid.
Hmm, nah. Next to that, if you think everything I said is invalid you must live in a completely different dimension to the rest of us. But I won't continue with you further as I've seen it a hundred times what it means to actually try and converse with you. You're entitled to your opinion, no less valid than mine.
bob82ca wrote: People have the right to complain about the balance. Say what you want about " forging the narrative", the gamers crave a competitive and balanced game. Its what people have been wanting for years and there is just no excuse for GW to keep these idiot game designers employed.
The problem is that there are some people out there that are delusional about the problem. They are either:
a) a GW employee or fanboy
b) someone who plays a top tier army such as Eldar, Tau, or Necrons
c) someone who plays a strong mid tier army such as grey Knights.
I mean, don't talk about balance if you've never payed 15 points to give a ig sarge a power sword lol. And that is the problem with the game, that GW would hold such things as an iron halo so highly....an incredibly rare and powerful item, but then give a whole frigging army an even better invul that is re animation protocol. And then you have a whole army of guys getting 2 saves instead of 1. Or how about armies like Tau getting 2 shooting phases and 2 movement phases.
Then idiots like the person who wrote this thread will say things like " well you shoulda brought 25 lascanons if you want to kill those riptides".
I mean, people that defend the balance are sort of like those people in Christopher Columbus times that argued that the Earth is flat. They will watch a Necrons army table an ork player and lose only 2 models, but that is just not enough evidence for them.
The right to complain about balance was not the point to beginwith. It was complaining about 2 specific things in a way that makes no sense logically. Exercise some reading comprehension and better manners instead of being juvenile, thanks.
RunicFIN wrote: Hmm, nah. Next to that, if you think everything I said is invalid you must live in a completely different dimension to the rest of us. But I won't continue with you further as I've seen it a hundred times what it means to actually try and converse with you. You're entitled to your opinion, no less valid than mine.
You seriously don't see why your opinion is invalid here? Your entire argument is based on the premise that only serious hardcore competitive players in competitive tournaments need to worry about playing with good lists, and other players shouldn't care if their lists aren't powerful enough. This is so absolutely ridiculous I'm amazed that you managed to write a whole post about it. Even "casual" players care about how well their lists perform, and those players are entirely justified in expecting to have an equal chance of winning when they bring their single-codex armies.
You seriously don't see why your opinion is invalid here? Your entire argument is based on the premise that only serious hardcore competitive players in competitive tournaments need to worry about playing with good lists, and other players shouldn't care if their lists aren't powerful enough. This is so absolutely ridiculous I'm amazed that you managed to write a whole post about it. Even "casual" players care about how well their lists perform, and those players are entirely justified in expecting to have an equal chance of winning when they bring their single-codex armies.
Validation for you: Everyone likes to win. Good warm fuzzy feelings, like crushing your friend at MarioKart
Reality: This is a "beer & pretzels" game. Unless you're doing it as a profession, that is. See: Competitive.
Peregrine wrote: You seriously don't see why your opinion is invalid here? Your entire argument is based on the premise that only serious hardcore competitive players in competitive tournaments need to worry about playing with good lists, and other players shouldn't care if their lists aren't powerful enough. This is so absolutely ridiculous I'm amazed that you managed to write a whole post about it. Even "casual" players care about how well their lists perform, and those players are entirely justified in expecting to have an equal chance of winning when they bring their single-codex armies.
As written, the premise is complaining about something being competitive or not. There is no point complaining about something not being competitive, if youre not even playing competitively. A casual game is between a friend or perhaps a pickup game, inwhich the terms and powerlevels are agreeable. If not, don't play such a person. In a tournament there is no agreeing about such things beforehand, hence competitiveness. The whole point is, if you're going to play a casual game with fluffy footslogging Deathguard vs. Heavy Bolter Space Marines, then what is the point of complaining something not being competitive in a tournament/non-casual enviroment. My personal experience is that the people doing the most complaining are in practice usually the worst players, no matter how brilliant they are in theoryhammer. But that's just my experience.
There really are 2 best ways to approach this game. Accept it with all it's flaws and make the best out of it, or don't and stop. Everything inbetween is your head, and a concrete wall.
Pyeatt wrote: Reality: This is a "beer & pretzels" game.
No it isn't. 40k is about as far from a "beer and pretzels" game as you can possibly get. It costs tons of time and money just to get the pieces to play, learning hundreds of pages of badly-written rules takes even more time, and then setting up and playing a game takes several hours (especially if you have to negotiate house rules to fix GW's mistakes). That's not a "beer and pretzels" game, it's a hobby you dedicate a significant part of your life to. So when you see "40k is a 'beer and prezels' game" what it really means is "STOP EXPECTING A HIGH-QUALITY PRODUCT AND BUY MORE SPACE MARINES!".
You seriously don't see why your opinion is invalid here? Your entire argument is based on the premise that only serious hardcore competitive players in competitive tournaments need to worry about playing with good lists, and other players shouldn't care if their lists aren't powerful enough. This is so absolutely ridiculous I'm amazed that you managed to write a whole post about it. Even "casual" players care about how well their lists perform, and those players are entirely justified in expecting to have an equal chance of winning when they bring their single-codex armies.
Validation for you: Everyone likes to win. Good warm fuzzy feelings, like crushing your friend at MarioKart
Reality: This is a "beer & pretzels" game. Unless you're doing it as a profession, that is. See: Competitive.
Yeah because competitive players do so as a profession...
Balanced rules would benifit 'fluffy' players just as much as competitive ones, and both types of players probably care equally about balance. If anything it would benefit fluffy players more, as they can then use the wackiest, fluffiest list they can dream up without hobbling themselves where as 'professional' players will just use whatever's competitive.
Casual players should be able to play their one codex army without it shooting them in the foot. They can care as much as 'proffesional' players. They probably care more, because they aren't just buying units they need to win, they're actually using models they like and care about. Just because it's a 'beer and pretzels' game doesn't mean balance isn't important.
And I'm pretty sure no one plays 40k professionally. It's not Magic.
RunicFIN wrote: A casual game is between a friend or perhaps a pickup game, inwhich the terms and powerlevels are agreeable.
And this is where you're wrong. A "casual" game can be one where both players carefully arrange the power levels of their lists, but it also includes pickup games where both people show up with armies and play with whatever they brought (even if the power level isn't equal), games between skilled players with optimized lists where it's a tournament game except for the lack of prizes, etc.
If not, don't play such a person.
You really don't see why "don't play anyone that has an army that isn't perfectly balanced with your own" is terrible advice?
The whole point is, if you're going to play a casual game with fluffy footslogging Deathguard vs. Heavy Bolter Space Marines, then what is the point of complaining something not being competitive in a tournament/non-casual enviroment.
Because "casual" does not mean "everyone takes bad units and uses weak strategies".
Peregrine wrote: You seriously don't see why your opinion is invalid here? Your entire argument is based on the premise that only serious hardcore competitive players in competitive tournaments need to worry about playing with good lists, and other players shouldn't care if their lists aren't powerful enough. This is so absolutely ridiculous I'm amazed that you managed to write a whole post about it. Even "casual" players care about how well their lists perform, and those players are entirely justified in expecting to have an equal chance of winning when they bring their single-codex armies.
As written, the premise is complaining about something being competitive or not. There is no point complaining about something not being competitive, if youre not even playing competitively. A casual game is between a friend or perhaps a pickup game, inwhich the terms and powerlevels are agreeable. If not, don't play such a person. In a tournament there is no agreeing about such things beforehand, hence competitiveness. The whole point is, if you're going to play a casual game with fluffy footslogging Deathguard vs. Heavy Bolter Space Marines, then what is the point of complaining something not being competitive in a tournament/non-casual enviroment. My personal experience is that the people doing the most complaining are in practice usually the worst players, no matter how brilliant they are in theoryhammer. But that's just my experience.
There really are 2 best ways to approach this game. Accept it with all it's flaws and make the best out of it, or don't and stop. Everything inbetween is your head, and a concrete wall.
Yes there is. Casual players should be able to play their lists 'competitively' as in be in with a chance. If you have the wrong list in 40k, you might not even have a chance. Why is there always this 'casual/competitive' divide when actually both sides would benifit from more balanced rules? We shouldn't be in a position where you might have to turn down a pick up game because you have no chance. There's literally no other TT game where that's a real worry.
Peregrine wrote: You seriously don't see why your opinion is invalid here? Your entire argument is based on the premise that only serious hardcore competitive players in competitive tournaments need to worry about playing with good lists, and other players shouldn't care if their lists aren't powerful enough. This is so absolutely ridiculous I'm amazed that you managed to write a whole post about it. Even "casual" players care about how well their lists perform, and those players are entirely justified in expecting to have an equal chance of winning when they bring their single-codex armies.
As written, the premise is complaining about something being competitive or not. There is no point complaining about something not being competitive, if youre not even playing competitively. A casual game is between a friend or perhaps a pickup game, inwhich the terms and powerlevels are agreeable. If not, don't play such a person. In a tournament there is no agreeing about such things beforehand, hence competitiveness. The whole point is, if you're going to play a casual game with fluffy footslogging Deathguard vs. Heavy Bolter Space Marines, then what is the point of complaining something not being competitive in a tournament/non-casual enviroment. My personal experience is that the people doing the most complaining are in practice usually the worst players, no matter how brilliant they are in theoryhammer. But that's just my experience.
There really are 2 best ways to approach this game. Accept it with all it's flaws and make the best out of it, or don't and stop. Everything inbetween is your head, and a concrete wall.
Yes there is. Casual players should be able to play their lists 'competitively' as in be in with a chance. If you have the wrong list in 40k, you might not even have a chance. Why is there always this 'casual/competitive' divide when actually both sides would benifit from more balanced rules? We shouldn't be in a position where you might have to turn down a pick up game because you have no chance. There's literally no other TT game where that's a real worry.
Such as a fluffy "decurian list" vs Heavy Bolter space marines. One can guess what armies are going to win even if they were half designed.
b) someone who plays a top tier army such as Eldar, Tau, or Necrons
As a side-note, I always find it fun when Tau gets mentioned along true top tier army. Double fun if SM and Daemons are.not mentioned.
That being said, I disagree with the idea that a unit's competitiveness is somehow related to the level at which you play. Better stuff is just that: better, even if in a less competitive setting you can make bad stuff work easier.
There has always been a difference between the competitive and casual crowd in 40k for as long as I've been paying attention at any rate, but I must say that this "Casual players just screw around and are bad at the game" is a much newer phenomena.
There has always been power builds, netlists and the like, the self-assured greatness of the tournament scene, but the rules in older editions were generally more functional; the divide in power between a top-tier army and the bottom was not as absolute as it was, owing to somewhat better codex balance, but more importantly more structured and though out core rules with a lot less bloat and exploitable mechanics.
The real difference between "Casual" and "Competitive" is a casual player builds a theme first, the list second. Competitive builds a list first and a theme second, if at all. Some themed lists are more powerful than others, and can match min-maxed lists in some cases (Necrons in particular at present). In 4th and 5th, the end result was not radically dissimilar; there were definite point traps for thematic players (Regiment Builder for Guard in particular - great place to waste points on things that won't do you many favours), but the balance outliers like WS/Wraithknight lists, Invisible Centstars, the Decurion, Summoning and such simply didn't exist, and things like that can simply annihilate armies unprepared for them.
Even the most optimized Grey Knights list, the undisputed king of cheese in 5th, wasn't a guaranteed win; a hard fight for someone playing a SM Demi-Company or Guard footsloggers, but the level of complete obliteration suffered by a "casual" player against a "competitive" player as exists now was almost unheard of. The resentment of this by casual players, and the increased self-assuredness granted to competitive players has only added vitriol to the community and created a much sharper divide than existed.
And the best part about this is GW doesn't notice and wouldn't care if they did; the insane thing is the way they write their rules, they clearly intend for people to only play it casually, the very notion of a "tournament" is never mentioned, recognized, suggested or considered. The "GW Hobby Centers" do painting competitions and campaigns, never tourneys, but their rules are such a pile of steaming gak that the "best" way to play the game, the way to have the best chances of actually enjoying yourself is throw theme and fluff out the window and build a frankenlist from across a dozen sources relying on horribly balanced units and formations.
Casual or competitive, you should be bloody pissed about the state of the rules; the casual players have a lot more trouble finding a good game as, if anything, casual lists will be more diverse in power levels and effectiveness than any competitive army, and competitive players end up facing a lot more of the same lists and fewer opponents willing to play them, all a byproduct of gak rules.
XFT. Top Tier doesn't mean it has the most Dakka posts crying about it (Normally Eldar). It means you can make at least 1 truly competitive list with it. Buy the codex, read it thoroughly before buying anything, then allocate proper funds for a small army. If you can't make at least 1 superb list with SM, then you simply don't know how to read a codex. (I don't know about daemons, I don't have that codex, and my local meta is all C:SM and Nids
That being said, I disagree with the idea that a unit's competitiveness is somehow related to the level at which you play. Better stuff is just that: better, even if in a less competitive setting you can make bad stuff work easier.
I feel like we should go back to OP's post where truly talented generals can make almost anything work... except mutilators... disgusting loser mutilators...
Luckily this thread was and is about something else than wanting your casual list to be competitive and your competitive list to be casual at the same time, which is in essence required for it to work even the other way around.
Player X might complain that his Seekers of Slaanesh do nothing, and that they aren't competitive enough for his casual games. This is the oxymoronic bit and the main point of my rant. You see threads like this with <insert unit that actually is fine> every day.
At the same time player Z dominates a tournament using Seekers and makes them bring back their points three times worth every match. The paradox is further bloated by the fact X complained the unit is not competitive even in casual games, whereas Z is using them in a vastly more competitive enviroment and making them perform.
The only conclusion is that X has no clue. He can't make something work in an easier enviroment, complaining it's the units fault, whereas someone else does the opposite in the vastly more difficult enviroment. And that's pretty much it, there is no squirming around it with excuses.
There has always been power builds, netlists and the like, the self-assured greatness of the tournament scene, but the rules in older editions were generally more functional; the divide in power between a top-tier army and the bottom was not as absolute as it was, owing to somewhat better codex balance, but more importantly more structured and though out core rules with a lot less bloat and exploitable mechanics.
The real difference between "Casual" and "Competitive" is a casual player builds a theme first, the list second. Competitive builds a list first and a theme second, if at all. Some themed lists are more powerful than others, and can match min-maxed lists in some cases (Necrons in particular at present). In 4th and 5th, the end result was not radically dissimilar; there were definite point traps for thematic players (Regiment Builder for Guard in particular - great place to waste points on things that won't do you many favours), but the balance outliers like WS/Wraithknight lists, Invisible Centstars, the Decurion, Summoning and such simply didn't exist, and things like that can simply annihilate armies unprepared for them.
3.5: Eldar Altoic Lists, Blood Angels Speed Is Key assaults, Chaos Space Marines Siren Song Chaos Princes.
4E: Skimmerspam/Falconspam Eldar, Fish of Fury Tau
5E: Mech Lists (admittedly the most balanced).
There's always been something at the top.
Player X might complain that his Seekers of Slaanesh do nothing, and that they aren't competitive enough for his casual games. This is the oxymoronic bit and the main point of my rant. You see threads like this with <insert unit that actually is fine> every day.
At the same time player Z dominates a tournament using Seekers and makes them bring back their points three times worth every match. The paradox is further bloated by the fact X complained the unit is not competitive even in casual games, whereas Z is using them in a vastly more competitive enviroment and making them perform.
The only conclusion is that X has no clue. He can't make something work in an easier enviroment, complaining it's the units fault, whereas someone else does the opposite in the vastly more difficult enviroment. And that's pretty much it, there is no squirming around it with excuses.
And what if that unit fulfills a specific niche in that tournement players meta in order to deal with specifics of Y? And Casual Meta Players Meta has included key meta components that generally push Seekers into a terrible role as their role on the tabletop ends up either Useless or otherwise a terrible choice in said Meta.
RunicFIN wrote: Luckily this thread was and is about something else than wanting your casual list to be competitive and your competitive list to be casual at the same time, which is in essence required for it to work even the other way around.
Player X might complain that his Seekers of Slaanesh do nothing, and that they aren't competitive enough for his casual games. This is the oxymoronic bit and the main point of my rant. You see threads like this with <insert unit that actually is fine> every day.
At the same time player Z dominates a tournament using Seekers and makes them bring back their points three times worth every match. The paradox is further bloated by the fact X complained the unit is not competitive even in casual games, whereas Z is using them in a vastly more competitive enviroment and making them perform.
And the point I was making is that should be irrelevant and a non-issue, for if the rules were in any way functional, or as functional as older editions, you wouldn't be seeing these complaints to anywhere near the same degree, and that the gulf which exists at present between the two camps wouldn't be as divisive.
Yes, with the right cross-codex manipulation, most units can be made half decent, but isn't that a little strange and self-contradictory in a game where every rulebook is about "Forging the Narrative" and the codices consist of about 80% background and fluff for a particular army, not Tigurius's invisible teleporting Centurions who picked up the Chapter Master of the Raptors along the way to go fight 6 flying hive tyrants?
There is something fundamentally disconnected between how the rules are written, how the game functions, what the community(s) want and what GW wants. The end result is a game with a fragmenting community, dominated by frustration, vitriol and conflict. What you're focused on is but one symptom of a larger problem, the whole "Well you guys just don't know how to play the game anymore," angle is very reflective of that growing divide in the playerbase which didn't used to exist.
There has always been power builds, netlists and the like, the self-assured greatness of the tournament scene, but the rules in older editions were generally more functional; the divide in power between a top-tier army and the bottom was not as absolute as it was, owing to somewhat better codex balance, but more importantly more structured and though out core rules with a lot less bloat and exploitable mechanics.
The real difference between "Casual" and "Competitive" is a casual player builds a theme first, the list second. Competitive builds a list first and a theme second, if at all. Some themed lists are more powerful than others, and can match min-maxed lists in some cases (Necrons in particular at present). In 4th and 5th, the end result was not radically dissimilar; there were definite point traps for thematic players (Regiment Builder for Guard in particular - great place to waste points on things that won't do you many favours), but the balance outliers like WS/Wraithknight lists, Invisible Centstars, the Decurion, Summoning and such simply didn't exist, and things like that can simply annihilate armies unprepared for them.
3.5: Eldar Altoic Lists, Blood Angels Speed Is Key assaults, Chaos Space Marines Siren Song Chaos Princes.
4E: Skimmerspam/Falconspam Eldar, Fish of Fury Tau
5E: Mech Lists (admittedly the most balanced).
There's always been something at the top.
There absolutely has, but the point I was trying to make was that they didn't used to break the game to degree we're seeing now. Being tabled turn 3 is something that just didn't happen in those editions, even between the top lists and the "casual" lists. The dysfunctional rules, lack of structure and even more wildly out-of-whack balance has made the difference an absolute, rather than relative one.
You put down an Adamantine Lance against a TAC Marine list, you've won before the first dice roll, more likely than not. Put down Fish of Fury vs the same list in 4th and you've got a good advantage, but you're not left with a case where the majority of the opponent's army has absolutely no way to harm your army in any way.
And what if that unit fulfills a specific niche in that tournement players meta in order to deal with specifics of Y?
I would imagine there aren't many tournaments into which you can bring a singular unit with the premise of them dealing with a niche present with almost every players list. If you're talking a "tournament player" playing his local meta instead of a tournament that usually has people from across the country or other countries participating, then ofcourse, the competitive player can counter his local meta with a specific unit should the meta be so one dimensional. If they're into list tailoring, that is.
MajorStoffer wrote: And the point I was making is that should be irrelevant and a non-issue, for if the rules were in any way functional, or as functional as older editions, you wouldn't be seeing these complaints to anywhere near the same degree, and that the gulf which exists at present between the two camps wouldn't be as divisive.
I agree. My rant and both points had to do with how things are ( as written ) not what they should be though. But, if you want to discuss "how it should be" -then yes.
I am playing in the now, and most complaints are about the now, and my rant pertains to the 2 big paradoxes usually accompanying said complaints. I'm sure you understood, and I understood you. You have my word.
I must say though, I remember the old editions very differently from you. The difference of power was almost the same between the top builds and the bad ones afaic. The game has always been like this, I'm more amazed at the people who are amazed about it than the game's unbalance. Regarding your turn 2 tabling, I have literally been tabled by the 9 Obliterator + Basilisk Iron Warriors of the old, in 2 turns in a tournament long ago.
3.5: Eldar Altoic Lists, Blood Angels Speed Is Key assaults, Chaos Space Marines Siren Song Chaos Princes.
4E: Skimmerspam/Falconspam Eldar, Fish of Fury Tau
5E: Mech Lists (admittedly the most balanced).
There's always been something at the top.
Fish of fury was a neat trick, but in no way was it any where near the top of the game. Decoy launchers/skimmers moving fast and IC status suits were the features tau used and abused effectively, not devilish squads who could at best, get one round of rapid fire in. The whole fourth ed. Tau codex has one decent build (3x hammerheads, 2x IC crisis suits, kroot for infantry, obligatory fw squad in a fish) and while it was decent for the first two years of fourth ed, it was never anything more than a mid tier build. by mid to late edition, it was really starting to show it's age and was really creaking at the seams, and in short order was pretty much outpaced, outclassed and made obselete by every newer codex.
And by the way, you forgot fourth ed iron warriors. They'd make the current cheese lists blush with Shame.
And what if that unit fulfills a specific niche in that tournement players meta in order to deal with specifics of Y? And Casual Meta Players Meta has included key meta components that generally push Seekers into a terrible role as their role on the tabletop ends up either Useless or otherwise a terrible choice in said Meta.
This actually proves the point more than disproves it. Hypothetical example to fit this discussion: "Oh I like Pathfinders a lot!" Suddenly, A wild Imperial Knight Wall Appears. They use double blasts of doom. It is super effective "I think I'll go on dakka and complain about how useless they are in all situations because I employed them against a unit they couldn't do much against."
And what if that unit fulfills a specific niche in that tournement players meta in order to deal with specifics of Y? And Casual Meta Players Meta has included key meta components that generally push Seekers into a terrible role as their role on the tabletop ends up either Useless or otherwise a terrible choice in said Meta.
This actually proves the point more than disproves it. Hypothetical example to fit this discussion: "Oh I like Pathfinders a lot!" Suddenly, A wild Imperial Knight Wall Appears. They use double blasts of doom. It is super effective "I think I'll go on dakka and complain about how useless they are in all situations because I employed them against a unit they couldn't do much against."
And if all you see is Imperial Knights because they can do everything enough that there's never any point to taking pathfinders?
I mean let's see, there's potentially tons of good units (no mutlilators aren't even good in optimal settings), but many of them are worthless in the face of OP builds that you'll often see after some point.
Some of which aren't even hard to make, the Necron Decurian is something many people find fluffy and maybe casual, but it's one of the single strongest things in the codex.
Wave Serpents are the Eldar's primary transport, having a bunch of them should be okay but no it pretty much ensures AV12 and below won't be useful without specific circumstances.
Some of these define the meta without even trying.
I'm a fluff player primarily. I've never been to a tournament and have no desire to.
However, the level of unbalance in the game was enough to push me out.
I'm in it for the stories (narrative) but when I see a list that's fits the fluff and very story based be near useless on the table, something's wrong. It kicks me out of the narrative.
Instead of theme based armies kicking butt, we see "My Necron, Eldar, deamon alliance stomps all other armies" nonsense. It ruins my biggest reason for playing. The narrative.
Also, "just use a bunch of armies together" doesn't work on a practical level because the cost of codexes is too high for many people. (especially beginners)
So, what I'm saying is, that a well written rule set with armies that are balance internally and externally would benefit casual and competitive players equally. At doesn't take away from the 'casual' and adds to both.
Out of curiosity, do you feel like the allies matrix has allowed GW to actually be more lazy in regards to codex balances?
The reason I ask, is that I enjoy mono-dex armies myself, but if I don't have a good counter to something, the usual response seems to be, just ally whatever you need. The only problem I have there, is that many times the ally answer is something from some other army that I never had any desire to play or collect in the first place.
On the other hand however, the fact that players "can" ally in pretty much whatever they want is what seems to lead to such an incredibly large mix/mash of innovative units utilizing each others rules for special tactics.
But anyways, the point of my question is really "Are some codexes better written or balanced/viable based on not having as many allies answers to specific things? Do you feel like the allies matrix provides GW with an easy cop-out so they don't necessarily 'need' to work as hard at balancing a lot of codexes? Been wondering about this awhile now, and I'm curious what you and others on Dakka think.
Well posting this on Dakka is just asking for trouble .
Totally agree with the OP though. It is silly how many people complain about being competitive in a casual sense. Most people will never ever be able to agree though as it would be admitting that they are in fact not amazing at the game. Of course ironically the best players are probably the ones who know they always have more to learn, but that's the case with most things.
MWHistorian wrote: I'm a fluff player primarily. I've never been to a tournament and have no desire to.
However, the level of unbalance in the game was enough to push me out.
I'm in it for the stories (narrative) but when I see a list that's fits the fluff and very story based be near useless on the table, something's wrong. It kicks me out of the narrative.
Instead of theme based armies kicking butt, we see "My Necron, Eldar, deamon alliance stomps all other armies" nonsense. It ruins my biggest reason for playing. The narrative.
Also, "just use a bunch of armies together" doesn't work on a practical level because the cost of codexes is too high for many people. (especially beginners)
So, what I'm saying is, that a well written rule set with armies that are balance internally and externally would benefit casual and competitive players equally. At doesn't take away from the 'casual' and adds to both.
Really how many Necron/Eldar/Daemon armies have you actually seen? I haven't seen a single list that crazy, not just in person but on batreps or even in tournament results. I mean hell the winner of the Adepticon GT used Mono Daemons. What kinds of armies are you talking about that fit the fluff but are USELESS on the table in actual real play?
ronin_cse wrote: Well posting this on Dakka is just asking for trouble .
Totally agree with the OP though. It is silly how many people complain about being competitive in a casual sense. Most people will never ever be able to agree though as it would be admitting that they are in fact not amazing at the game. Of course ironically the best players are probably the ones who know they always have more to learn, but that's the case with most things.
It's really not silly how people complain for reasons that have been stated already in this post. 'Casual' players have just as much reason to complain about the rules as they are now.
Really how many Necron/Eldar/Daemon armies have you actually seen? I haven't seen a single list that crazy, not just in person but on batreps or even in tournament results. I mean hell the winner of the Adepticon GT used Mono Daemons. What kinds of armies are you talking about that fit the fluff but are USELESS on the table in actual real play?
Well,
3rd place at this year's Adepticon was Necrons and Eldar, 16th was Tyranid, Eldar, Inquisition.
Those are probably the most egregious fluff offences in the finalists.
What seems bizarre to me though is why is this even a point of discussion? Why is there such a divide between "competitive" lists and "fluffy" lists? Why aren't there just "lists?"
If the rules were any good, people could just bring what they liked and how they played would be a much larger component of who won. Sure, you'd get some lists that were more optimal than others, but then, much like tweaking a CCG deck, there would be fun in honing a list so it was the best it could be, instead we have massive swings in power between books/units/alliances which render other choices redundant. Not because you necessarily care to go all out to win, but just because you don't enjoy being tabled.
As I've said before, "competitive" should only ever be an attitude, never a playstyle.
RunicFIN wrote: you don't need a competitive list for casual games, they are casual games, and that's it.
This implies the two are exclusive, and they aren't. A casual game shouldn't need to use gimped lists, the game should be balanced correctly that choices are viable for both. You're making some hard divide between "casual" and "competitive' when this typically does not exist, nor should it.
This isn't even limited to GW. I play Warmachine and I see this same kind of horsegak peddled there where you should take a gak list to fun games and a good list to serious games instead of take a good list (possibly subjective, possibly not) to games, period.
There is a fundamental flaw between what people want (balanced rules that allow both casual and competitive games with little or no house ruling needed) and what GW puts out (random balance that seems to be nonsensical) and how that actually works in the game. When you have a unit that's garbage next to another unit that's great, this is 100% the rules designers failure and it's not on the player to deliberately choose to take the gak unit for fun games because the OP unit is going to be too easy to win with - the sheer fact such a thing is uttered means the rules are total gak and need a lot of work to fix.
The only real defense for GW is that many, many game systems break down when optimizing players start doing their thing. However, there are games that do hold up and resist optimization pretty well, so there is proof that it can be done.
However, to me, there is little room to forgive the poor in-game function of units like Howling Banshees or terminators.
MWHistorian wrote: I'm a fluff player primarily. I've never been to a tournament and have no desire to. However, the level of unbalance in the game was enough to push me out. I'm in it for the stories (narrative) but when I see a list that's fits the fluff and very story based be near useless on the table, something's wrong. It kicks me out of the narrative. Instead of theme based armies kicking butt, we see "My Necron, Eldar, deamon alliance stomps all other armies" nonsense. It ruins my biggest reason for playing. The narrative. Also, "just use a bunch of armies together" doesn't work on a practical level because the cost of codexes is too high for many people. (especially beginners) So, what I'm saying is, that a well written rule set with armies that are balance internally and externally would benefit casual and competitive players equally. At doesn't take away from the 'casual' and adds to both.
This this this. A good game would put narrative, fluffy armies on an equal footing to "competitive" lists, at least enough where player skill can win the day. A fluffy army shouldn't get roflstomped by some allied OP spam list. If you want to play fluffy Eldar with different aspects or a Terminator-centric SM army for the narrative you shouldn't get your teeth kicked in for picking subpar units. If you want an Undivided CSM army you shouldn't automatically be at a disadvantage for not taking Nurgle.
I continue to be amazed by the lengths people will go to to justify GW's incompetence and shift the blame on the players for not playing the game correctly.
I mean, if people are this loyal to GW as to be functionally blind to its many, many flaws, can you imagine how loyal they'd be if GW made an attempt at balance, fair prices, and customer interaction/feedback? Its almost too terrifying to dwell on.
Where is it written that casual means "bring crappy units and play like crap?" I've never understood that definition.
A. There shouldn't be crappy units, only units made for certain situations, like anti-infantry/cheap or elite. ETC.
B. You should always play to win.
C. Always play with both players' fun in mind.
Really how many Necron/Eldar/Daemon armies have you actually seen? I haven't seen a single list that crazy, not just in person but on batreps or even in tournament results. I mean hell the winner of the Adepticon GT used Mono Daemons. What kinds of armies are you talking about that fit the fluff but are USELESS on the table in actual real play?
Well,
3rd place at this year's Adepticon was Necrons and Eldar, 16th was Tyranid, Eldar, Inquisition.
Those are probably the most egregious fluff offences in the finalists.
What seems bizarre to me though is why is this even a point of discussion? Why is there such a divide between "competitive" lists and "fluffy" lists? Why aren't there just "lists?"
If the rules were any good, people could just bring what they liked and how they played would be a much larger component of who won. Sure, you'd get some lists that were more optimal than others, but then, much like tweaking a CCG deck, there would be fun in honing a list so it was the best it could be, instead we have massive swings in power between books/units/alliances which render other choices redundant. Not because you necessarily care to go all out to win, but just because you don't enjoy being tabled.
As I've said before, "competitive" should only ever be an attitude, never a playstyle.
That just isn't going to happen though. What other game that allows you this much freedom doesn't have a difference between competitive and for fun lists? There might be some but I am not familiar with them. Warmachine and MTG are two examples that spring to mind. People always say Warmachine has tighter rules and better balance than 40k, but can you take whatever you want and expect to win against anything? Hell no! I haven't played for awhile but from what I understand those expensive Gargantuans are just about useless in a competitive environment. Last year at least Retribution was easily bottom tier. I'm sure there are many other totally useless units in the game now but I haven't been keeping up with the Meta. MTG is sooooo much worse and people do play that game as a career. At least in 40k most units can at least do something, and I'd argue most could be a good inclusion depending on the list and such, in MTG MOST of the stuff they put out is total trash that just fills out the booster packs. If you aren't running one of the net lists you are basically not competitive and the meta doesn't change beyond a few decks until the next release.
What you are describing is basically every unit being viable against every other unit. If that in fact ever happens the game would be VERY boring. Even a game like X-Wing with 3 factions (and before with 2) this isn't the case. There are ships and upgrades that people simply don't take. Really IMO40k is the best when it comes to being able to make most things work. If you really want to you can take that awesome looking model and actually get something done with it because there are soooooooo many variables that they can't all be accounted for.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Blacksails wrote: I continue to be amazed by the lengths people will go to to justify GW's incompetence and shift the blame on the players for not playing the game correctly.
I mean, if people are this loyal to GW as to be functionally blind to its many, many flaws, can you imagine how loyal they'd be if GW made an attempt at balance, fair prices, and customer interaction/feedback? Its almost too terrifying to dwell on.
Please point me to a company that has real balance in their game, has "fair prices" (fair prices are honestly what people will buy a product for), and puts out models at least as good as GW? GW does actually have really great customer service so I can't really fault the interaction, feedback would be nice but they aren't exactly the only company to play stuff close.
PP would be the closest analogy but they are as expensive as GW, their game still isn't perfectly balanced, and IMO the models aren't as good.
That just isn't going to happen though. What other game that allows you this much freedom doesn't have a difference between competitive and for fun lists? There might be some but I am not familiar with them. Warmachine and MTG are two examples that spring to mind. People always say Warmachine has tighter rules and better balance than 40k, but can you take whatever you want and expect to win against anything? Hell no! I haven't played for awhile but from what I understand those expensive Gargantuans are just about useless in a competitive environment. Last year at least Retribution was easily bottom tier. I'm sure there are many other totally useless units in the game now but I haven't been keeping up with the Meta. MTG is sooooo much worse and people do play that game as a career. At least in 40k most units can at least do something, and I'd argue most could be a good inclusion depending on the list and such, in MTG MOST of the stuff they put out is total trash that just fills out the booster packs. If you aren't running one of the net lists you are basically not competitive and the meta doesn't change beyond a few decks until the next release.
Yes and no. You have enough freedom that you can formulate a plan with "whatever you want" and you're going to be at a slight disadvantage if you face a power list, but not completely outgunned and roflstomped. In fact, there's a lot of "list dojo" that uses unorthodox things in different ways specifically because it shakes up the meta and people aren't going to expect it. It's a far cry from 40k. The difference in Warmachine between "play what you like" and "netlist" is often not a lot.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
ronin_cse wrote: PP would be the closest analogy but they are as expensive as GW, their game still isn't perfectly balanced, and IMO the models aren't as good.
One of these is 100% subjective and has no bearing on the discussion because it's entirely opinion. Another is virtually impossible to achieve for anyone and therefore can't reasonably be applied. The third is basically a flat out lie when you do more than compare model to model.
Most other games have a much closer gap between 'casual' and 'competitive' though.
Essentially because most other games have a much greater degree of player involvement, so if you find yourself on the back foot, good play can help compensate.
This isn't a thing that 40K, with all the random, excels at.
By contrast, I recently played a game of X Wing against a mate using a clone of one of the world finalists (may have been the winner) with a list I literally cobbled together in 20 minutes out of stuff I chose mostly because I'd not used it before/for a while.
Ultimately, yes, I did lose, but I was able to make a fist of it because X Wing rewards good gameplay at least as much as good list building m
That just isn't going to happen though. What other game that allows you this much freedom doesn't have a difference between competitive and for fun lists? There might be some but I am not familiar with them. Warmachine and MTG are two examples that spring to mind. People always say Warmachine has tighter rules and better balance than 40k, but can you take whatever you want and expect to win against anything? Hell no! I haven't played for awhile but from what I understand those expensive Gargantuans are just about useless in a competitive environment. Last year at least Retribution was easily bottom tier. I'm sure there are many other totally useless units in the game now but I haven't been keeping up with the Meta. MTG is sooooo much worse and people do play that game as a career. At least in 40k most units can at least do something, and I'd argue most could be a good inclusion depending on the list and such, in MTG MOST of the stuff they put out is total trash that just fills out the booster packs. If you aren't running one of the net lists you are basically not competitive and the meta doesn't change beyond a few decks until the next release.
Yes and no. You have enough freedom that you can formulate a plan with "whatever you want" and you're going to be at a slight disadvantage if you face a power list, but not completely outgunned and roflstomped. In fact, there's a lot of "list dojo" that uses unorthodox things in different ways specifically because it shakes up the meta and people aren't going to expect it. It's a far cry from 40k. The difference in Warmachine between "play what you like" and "netlist" is often not a lot.
You mean like taking a SM list based on Scouts and coming in 2nd in a major tournament?
Automatically Appended Next Post:
ronin_cse wrote: PP would be the closest analogy but they are as expensive as GW, their game still isn't perfectly balanced, and IMO the models aren't as good.
One of these is 100% subjective and has no bearing. Another is virtually impossible to achieve for anyone and therefore can't reasonably be applied. The third is basically a flat out lie when you do more than compare model to model.
Kind of proving my point there. Are we not allowed to compare model to model? The game uses bigger armies so it is more expensive to play, but per model it is about the same price and the models are generally considered better. If I am comparing one of those big cans of beer to a six pack am I not allowed to compare them based on price per oz?
That just isn't going to happen though. What other game that allows you this much freedom doesn't have a difference between competitive and for fun lists? There might be some but I am not familiar with them. Warmachine and MTG are two examples that spring to mind. People always say Warmachine has tighter rules and better balance than 40k, but can you take whatever you want and expect to win against anything? Hell no! I haven't played for awhile but from what I understand those expensive Gargantuans are just about useless in a competitive environment. Last year at least Retribution was easily bottom tier. I'm sure there are many other totally useless units in the game now but I haven't been keeping up with the Meta. MTG is sooooo much worse and people do play that game as a career. At least in 40k most units can at least do something, and I'd argue most could be a good inclusion depending on the list and such, in MTG MOST of the stuff they put out is total trash that just fills out the booster packs. If you aren't running one of the net lists you are basically not competitive and the meta doesn't change beyond a few decks until the next release.
Yes and no. You have enough freedom that you can formulate a plan with "whatever you want" and you're going to be at a slight disadvantage if you face a power list, but not completely outgunned and roflstomped. In fact, there's a lot of "list dojo" that uses unorthodox things in different ways specifically because it shakes up the meta and people aren't going to expect it. It's a far cry from 40k. The difference in Warmachine between "play what you like" and "netlist" is often not a lot.
You mean like taking a SM list based on Scouts and coming in 2nd in a major tournament?
Automatically Appended Next Post:
ronin_cse wrote: PP would be the closest analogy but they are as expensive as GW, their game still isn't perfectly balanced, and IMO the models aren't as good.
One of these is 100% subjective and has no bearing. Another is virtually impossible to achieve for anyone and therefore can't reasonably be applied. The third is basically a flat out lie when you do more than compare model to model.
Kind of proving my point there. Are we not allowed to compare model to model? The game uses bigger armies so it is more expensive to play, but per model it is about the same price and the models are generally considered better. If I am comparing one of those big cans of beer to a six pack am I not allowed to compare them based on price per oz?
Price per model has never been a valid comparison for anything, and even then GW loses when you compare to historical gaming (oh but let me guess those models don't look the same so don't count, right?). This argument has been hashed and rehashed Emperor knows how many times before, and yet there's always someone new to dig it out again every few months.
Azreal13 wrote: Most other games have a much closer gap between 'casual' and 'competitive' though.
Essentially because most other games have a much greater degree of player involvement, so if you find yourself on the back foot, good play can help compensate.
This isn't a thing that 40K, with all the random, excels at.
By contrast, I recently played a game of X Wing against a mate using a clone of one of the world finalists (may have been the winner) with a list I literally cobbled together in 20 minutes out of stuff I chose mostly because I'd not used it before/for a while.
Ultimately, yes, I did lose, but I was able to make a fist of it because X Wing rewards good gameplay at least as much as good list building m
It is though, a better player can still beat a worse player much of the time assuming his list isn't just horrible. Also by making that argument you are kind of falling into the OPs argument about being the 98%
Again this proves my point though. X-Wing, a game that is SOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO much simpler than 40k STILL has imbalances and an optimized list will STILL generally beat a thrown together list.
That just isn't going to happen though. What other game that allows you this much freedom doesn't have a difference between competitive and for fun lists? There might be some but I am not familiar with them. Warmachine and MTG are two examples that spring to mind. People always say Warmachine has tighter rules and better balance than 40k, but can you take whatever you want and expect to win against anything? Hell no! I haven't played for awhile but from what I understand those expensive Gargantuans are just about useless in a competitive environment. Last year at least Retribution was easily bottom tier. I'm sure there are many other totally useless units in the game now but I haven't been keeping up with the Meta. MTG is sooooo much worse and people do play that game as a career. At least in 40k most units can at least do something, and I'd argue most could be a good inclusion depending on the list and such, in MTG MOST of the stuff they put out is total trash that just fills out the booster packs. If you aren't running one of the net lists you are basically not competitive and the meta doesn't change beyond a few decks until the next release.
Yes and no. You have enough freedom that you can formulate a plan with "whatever you want" and you're going to be at a slight disadvantage if you face a power list, but not completely outgunned and roflstomped. In fact, there's a lot of "list dojo" that uses unorthodox things in different ways specifically because it shakes up the meta and people aren't going to expect it. It's a far cry from 40k. The difference in Warmachine between "play what you like" and "netlist" is often not a lot.
You mean like taking a SM list based on Scouts and coming in 2nd in a major tournament?
Automatically Appended Next Post:
ronin_cse wrote: PP would be the closest analogy but they are as expensive as GW, their game still isn't perfectly balanced, and IMO the models aren't as good.
One of these is 100% subjective and has no bearing. Another is virtually impossible to achieve for anyone and therefore can't reasonably be applied. The third is basically a flat out lie when you do more than compare model to model.
Kind of proving my point there. Are we not allowed to compare model to model? The game uses bigger armies so it is more expensive to play, but per model it is about the same price and the models are generally considered better. If I am comparing one of those big cans of beer to a six pack am I not allowed to compare them based on price per oz?
Price per model has never been a valid comparison for anything, and even then GW loses when you compare to historical gaming (oh but let me guess those models don't look the same so don't count, right?). This argument has been hashed and rehashed Emperor knows how many times before, and yet there's always someone new to dig it out again every few months.
I'll concede price per model isn't valid if you can tell me why my analogy with the beer is invalid as well.
Azreal13 wrote: Most other games have a much closer gap between 'casual' and 'competitive' though.
Essentially because most other games have a much greater degree of player involvement, so if you find yourself on the back foot, good play can help compensate.
This isn't a thing that 40K, with all the random, excels at.
By contrast, I recently played a game of X Wing against a mate using a clone of one of the world finalists (may have been the winner) with a list I literally cobbled together in 20 minutes out of stuff I chose mostly because I'd not used it before/for a while.
Ultimately, yes, I did lose, but I was able to make a fist of it because X Wing rewards good gameplay at least as much as good list building m
It is though, a better player can still beat a worse player much of the time assuming his list isn't just horrible. Also by making that argument you are kind of falling into the OPs argument about being the 98%
Again this proves my point though. X-Wing, a game that is SOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO much simpler than 40k STILL has imbalances and an optimized list will STILL generally beat a thrown together list.
That just isn't going to happen though. What other game that allows you this much freedom doesn't have a difference between competitive and for fun lists? There might be some but I am not familiar with them. Warmachine and MTG are two examples that spring to mind. People always say Warmachine has tighter rules and better balance than 40k, but can you take whatever you want and expect to win against anything? Hell no! I haven't played for awhile but from what I understand those expensive Gargantuans are just about useless in a competitive environment. Last year at least Retribution was easily bottom tier. I'm sure there are many other totally useless units in the game now but I haven't been keeping up with the Meta. MTG is sooooo much worse and people do play that game as a career. At least in 40k most units can at least do something, and I'd argue most could be a good inclusion depending on the list and such, in MTG MOST of the stuff they put out is total trash that just fills out the booster packs. If you aren't running one of the net lists you are basically not competitive and the meta doesn't change beyond a few decks until the next release.
Yes and no. You have enough freedom that you can formulate a plan with "whatever you want" and you're going to be at a slight disadvantage if you face a power list, but not completely outgunned and roflstomped. In fact, there's a lot of "list dojo" that uses unorthodox things in different ways specifically because it shakes up the meta and people aren't going to expect it. It's a far cry from 40k. The difference in Warmachine between "play what you like" and "netlist" is often not a lot.
You mean like taking a SM list based on Scouts and coming in 2nd in a major tournament?
Automatically Appended Next Post:
ronin_cse wrote: PP would be the closest analogy but they are as expensive as GW, their game still isn't perfectly balanced, and IMO the models aren't as good.
One of these is 100% subjective and has no bearing. Another is virtually impossible to achieve for anyone and therefore can't reasonably be applied. The third is basically a flat out lie when you do more than compare model to model.
Kind of proving my point there. Are we not allowed to compare model to model? The game uses bigger armies so it is more expensive to play, but per model it is about the same price and the models are generally considered better. If I am comparing one of those big cans of beer to a six pack am I not allowed to compare them based on price per oz?
Price per model has never been a valid comparison for anything, and even then GW loses when you compare to historical gaming (oh but let me guess those models don't look the same so don't count, right?). This argument has been hashed and rehashed Emperor knows how many times before, and yet there's always someone new to dig it out again every few months.
I'll concede price per model isn't valid if you can tell me why my analogy with the beer is invalid as well.
I don't drink beer so I'm basically picking names off my head based on what little I know. You're basically comparing a 6-pack of Guiness (insert "high end" beer here) to a 24 pack of Budweiser (insert "average" beer here). The value of the models makes GW less valuable because not only does it cost more but you need more as well since you get less value (i.e. points in the game). When I pay $50 for a unit of 10 guys in Warmachine, that unit is representing a larger chunk of my force than a $40 unit of 10 guys from GW.
Really how many Necron/Eldar/Daemon armies have you actually seen? I haven't seen a single list that crazy, not just in person but on batreps or even in tournament results. I mean hell the winner of the Adepticon GT used Mono Daemons. What kinds of armies are you talking about that fit the fluff but are USELESS on the table in actual real play?
Well,
3rd place at this year's Adepticon was Necrons and Eldar, 16th was Tyranid, Eldar, Inquisition.
Those are probably the most egregious fluff offences in the finalists.
What seems bizarre to me though is why is this even a point of discussion? Why is there such a divide between "competitive" lists and "fluffy" lists? Why aren't there just "lists?"
If the rules were any good, people could just bring what they liked and how they played would be a much larger component of who won. Sure, you'd get some lists that were more optimal than others, but then, much like tweaking a CCG deck, there would be fun in honing a list so it was the best it could be, instead we have massive swings in power between books/units/alliances which render other choices redundant. Not because you necessarily care to go all out to win, but just because you don't enjoy being tabled.
As I've said before, "competitive" should only ever be an attitude, never a playstyle.
That just isn't going to happen though. What other game that allows you this much freedom doesn't have a difference between competitive and for fun lists? There might be some but I am not familiar with them. Warmachine and MTG are two examples that spring to mind. People always say Warmachine has tighter rules and better balance than 40k, but can you take whatever you want and expect to win against anything? Hell no! I haven't played for awhile but from what I understand those expensive Gargantuans are just about useless in a competitive environment. Last year at least Retribution was easily bottom tier. I'm sure there are many other totally useless units in the game now but I haven't been keeping up with the Meta. MTG is sooooo much worse and people do play that game as a career. At least in 40k most units can at least do something, and I'd argue most could be a good inclusion depending on the list and such, in MTG MOST of the stuff they put out is total trash that just fills out the booster packs. If you aren't running one of the net lists you are basically not competitive and the meta doesn't change beyond a few decks until the next release.
What you are describing is basically every unit being viable against every other unit. If that in fact ever happens the game would be VERY boring. Even a game like X-Wing with 3 factions (and before with 2) this isn't the case. There are ships and upgrades that people simply don't take. Really IMO40k is the best when it comes to being able to make most things work. If you really want to you can take that awesome looking model and actually get something done with it because there are soooooooo many variables that they can't all be accounted for.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Blacksails wrote: I continue to be amazed by the lengths people will go to to justify GW's incompetence and shift the blame on the players for not playing the game correctly.
I mean, if people are this loyal to GW as to be functionally blind to its many, many flaws, can you imagine how loyal they'd be if GW made an attempt at balance, fair prices, and customer interaction/feedback? Its almost too terrifying to dwell on.
Please point me to a company that has real balance in their game, has "fair prices" (fair prices are honestly what people will buy a product for), and puts out models at least as good as GW? GW does actually have really great customer service so I can't really fault the interaction, feedback would be nice but they aren't exactly the only company to play stuff close.
PP would be the closest analogy but they are as expensive as GW, their game still isn't perfectly balanced, and IMO the models aren't as good.
Gargantuans aren't useless at all. Look at how many Cygnar or CoC lists have them. They're a tactical choice. And no, there aren't a bunch of totally useless units. There are some that have too specific niches but can still be used well. (The only actual sub par unit I can think of is the Man O' Wars and even then I still use them because "Warmachine useless" and "40k Useless" are miles apart.
Azreal13 wrote: Most other games have a much closer gap between 'casual' and 'competitive' though.
Essentially because most other games have a much greater degree of player involvement, so if you find yourself on the back foot, good play can help compensate.
This isn't a thing that 40K, with all the random, excels at.
By contrast, I recently played a game of X Wing against a mate using a clone of one of the world finalists (may have been the winner) with a list I literally cobbled together in 20 minutes out of stuff I chose mostly because I'd not used it before/for a while.
Ultimately, yes, I did lose, but I was able to make a fist of it because X Wing rewards good gameplay at least as much as good list building m
It is though, a better player can still beat a worse player much of the time assuming his list isn't just horrible. Also by making that argument you are kind of falling into the OPs argument about being the 98%
Again this proves my point though. X-Wing, a game that is SOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO much simpler than 40k STILL has imbalances and an optimized list will STILL generally beat a thrown together list.
That just isn't going to happen though. What other game that allows you this much freedom doesn't have a difference between competitive and for fun lists? There might be some but I am not familiar with them. Warmachine and MTG are two examples that spring to mind. People always say Warmachine has tighter rules and better balance than 40k, but can you take whatever you want and expect to win against anything? Hell no! I haven't played for awhile but from what I understand those expensive Gargantuans are just about useless in a competitive environment. Last year at least Retribution was easily bottom tier. I'm sure there are many other totally useless units in the game now but I haven't been keeping up with the Meta. MTG is sooooo much worse and people do play that game as a career. At least in 40k most units can at least do something, and I'd argue most could be a good inclusion depending on the list and such, in MTG MOST of the stuff they put out is total trash that just fills out the booster packs. If you aren't running one of the net lists you are basically not competitive and the meta doesn't change beyond a few decks until the next release.
Yes and no. You have enough freedom that you can formulate a plan with "whatever you want" and you're going to be at a slight disadvantage if you face a power list, but not completely outgunned and roflstomped. In fact, there's a lot of "list dojo" that uses unorthodox things in different ways specifically because it shakes up the meta and people aren't going to expect it. It's a far cry from 40k. The difference in Warmachine between "play what you like" and "netlist" is often not a lot.
You mean like taking a SM list based on Scouts and coming in 2nd in a major tournament?
Automatically Appended Next Post:
ronin_cse wrote: PP would be the closest analogy but they are as expensive as GW, their game still isn't perfectly balanced, and IMO the models aren't as good.
One of these is 100% subjective and has no bearing. Another is virtually impossible to achieve for anyone and therefore can't reasonably be applied. The third is basically a flat out lie when you do more than compare model to model.
Kind of proving my point there. Are we not allowed to compare model to model? The game uses bigger armies so it is more expensive to play, but per model it is about the same price and the models are generally considered better. If I am comparing one of those big cans of beer to a six pack am I not allowed to compare them based on price per oz?
Price per model has never been a valid comparison for anything, and even then GW loses when you compare to historical gaming (oh but let me guess those models don't look the same so don't count, right?). This argument has been hashed and rehashed Emperor knows how many times before, and yet there's always someone new to dig it out again every few months.
I'll concede price per model isn't valid if you can tell me why my analogy with the beer is invalid as well.
I don't drink beer so I'm basically picking names off my head based on what little I know. You're basically comparing a 6-pack of Guiness (insert "high end" beer here) to a 24 pack of Budweiser (insert "average" beer here). The value of the models makes GW less valuable because not only does it cost more but you need more as well since you get less value (i.e. points in the game). When I pay $50 for a unit of 10 guys in Warmachine, that unit is representing a larger chunk of my force than a $40 unit of 10 guys from GW.
Please don't be obtuse: I'm comparing a package of one of something to multiples. Let's use coke. I can buy a 2 liter of Coke for cheaper than a 12 pack of Coke, but if we compare the price per oz the 12 pack is cheaper. There is no reason this is not a valid comparison. Maybe I'm throwing a party and so I need more soda. Obviously buying soda for the party is more expensive than just buying enough for me to have dinner, but it doesn't change the value of the 2 liter vs the 12 pack.
Either way: when we choose to play a game that requires more models to play, there is no point complaining about how many models are required to play it
Gargantuans aren't useless at all. Look at how many Cygnar or CoC lists have them. They're a tactical choice. And no, there aren't a bunch of totally useless units. There are some that have too specific niches but can still be used well. (The only actual sub par unit I can think of is the Man O' Wars and even then I still use them because "Warmachine useless" and "40k Useless" are miles apart.
So a mountain king (or what ever the troll one is called) is a completely valid choice and you see those in competitive lists all the time?
This is pointless anyways, we will never agree on what constitutes balance in the first place. I asked that question on Warseer awhile ago and no one gave me the same answer as to what balance really means. IN MY OPINION 40k is just as balanced is Warmachine, especially considering how many more options and releases 40k gets.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Azreal13 wrote: Winners use spoiler tags, or don't re-quote massive quote trees.
Just sayin.
Should be pretty obvious I haven't posted on here all that much
A nigh-random selection of models from any of my 40k armies tends to perform substantially better than a nigh-random selection from my Cygnar collection.
40k has a lot of options that are clearly substandard, but rarely do many of them feel pointless just because I brought the "wrong" HQ.
Even in chess, you can have "casual" games. Just make a move and think about it later. Could be a lot of fun as a replacement for a more "serious" game when I played.
"Casual" isn't necessarily a weaker list, or playing to lose. It can be things like Asurmen leading a charge when holding position locks in the win. Or blowing up a building filled with Genestealers instead of charging the Death Company that'll charge you next round, because you get to fry those filthy bugs!
Gargantuans aren't useless at all. Look at how many Cygnar or CoC lists have them. They're a tactical choice. And no, there aren't a bunch of totally useless units. There are some that have too specific niches but can still be used well. (The only actual sub par unit I can think of is the Man O' Wars and even then I still use them because "Warmachine useless" and "40k Useless" are miles apart.
So a mountain king (or what ever the troll one is called) is a completely valid choice and you see those in competitive lists all the time?
This is pointless anyways, we will never agree on what constitutes balance in the first place. I asked that question on Warseer awhile ago and no one gave me the same answer as to what balance really means. IN MY OPINION 40k is just as balanced is Warmachine, especially considering how many more options and releases 40k gets.
The MK is subpar and corner case but you can still build a valid list around it if you wanted to. You don't autolose by taking one. So yes it is a valid choice.
There is no definition where 40k is more balanced than WMH. There also aren't really that much more in terms of options in 40k (different weapons, but there's probably more units per faction in WMH, and very very few are never worth taking. Most of the options in 40k are subpar and you see the exact same things being taken every time).
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Bharring wrote: A nigh-random selection of models from any of my 40k armies tends to perform substantially better than a nigh-random selection from my Cygnar collection.
40k has a lot of options that are clearly substandard, but rarely do many of them feel pointless just because I brought the "wrong" HQ.
Even in chess, you can have "casual" games. Just make a move and think about it later. Could be a lot of fun as a replacement for a more "serious" game when I played.
"Casual" isn't necessarily a weaker list, or playing to lose. It can be things like Asurmen leading a charge when holding position locks in the win. Or blowing up a building filled with Genestealers instead of charging the Death Company that'll charge you next round, because you get to fry those filthy bugs!
I think you're oversimplifying.
Thing with thag argument is, if something's bad in 40k, it's just bad. Where as things in WMH can be made good with the right caster. And I don't see how you can use a 'random selection' type list as a comparison for balance...
Back to the OP, the problem is that the gap between "good" and "garbage" in 40k is basically huge. There are units in the same codex that fill similar roles where one is just worlds better than the other for seemingly no reason, to the point where there's no realistic reason why you would ever take Unit B over Unit A. That's poor from a rules standpoint alone, but let's see how it affects the casual and competitive gamers.
The competitive gamer, let's call him Spike (as a homage to MtG) looks at Unit B and sees that it's worse than Unit A, so won't take it based on that alone. If Unit B was better or maybe did a different type of role to Unit A maybe Spike would consider it, but since it doesn't it never factors into his choices, and he plays (and probably wins) without it. Spike would never pick Unit B if it was worse than Unit A, so it doesn't affect him at all.
The casual gamer, who we'll call Bob, really likes how Unit B looks visually, and he might even have a concept or theme for his force that Unit B fits in better than Unit A. Even though Unit B is worse in every way compared to Unit A, he will take Unit B because Unit A doesn't fit and Unit B does. What's the result? His force is less effective because he didn't choose Unit A (the superior unit) but instead chose Unit B (the inferior unit). Bob gets punished because the theme he wanted for his army and maybe spent lots of time coming up with works better with a unit that's vastly inferior on the table, regardless of if he plays Spike or another Bob. Unit B's crappy rules means that Bob suffers for picking something for flavor and not power.
That, in a nutshell, is the problem with 40k's awful rules and worse balance. It punishes Bob more than Spike because Bob is the guy who is more likely to pick that subpar unit based on everything except it's use on the tabletop. Spike could care less how cool it looks, the unit sucks in the game so he'll likely never buy it let alone field it.
It gets even worse when you consider this scenario:
Jim is a casual gamer too, like Bob. Just like Bob, Jim comes up with a good, fluffy, narrative army concept and goes about collecting it. Jim's concept however is better suited by Unit A (the superior unit). Jim is not punished like Bob is, because Jim's concept means he's taking the better choice, even though unlike Spike he doesn't care about its performance. If Bob and Jim play a casual game, Bob is at a disadvantage because Bob just happened to like a concept that makes him want to use a worse unit. Bob likes the wrong things, while Jim likes the right things.
That's complete and utter rubbish to ever happen in a game, doubly so for one that claims to encourage narrative and casual gaming, because it's clear that the rules do not. Bob is a narrative, casual gamer and gets screwed because the unit(s) he likes aren't as good as the units Jim (another narrative, casual gamer) likes even though both of them want to play units they like.
Like some others have said in GW's defense - any game that is this open ended and varied is nearly impossible to balance perfectly. That said, they could do a better job. I've played this game since 2nd and it has never been without the ability to abuse the rules. In their eyes it is perfectly balanced - to sell the models. The newest stuff only sells a lot if it is fun to use and that usually means killy. The constant cycle of different aspects of the game being powerful is obvious - assault - transports - shooting - now the giant models that don't even belong at this scale. Instead of fixing something that doesn't work they make new stuff because in the end they must sell toys to survive. There was no need to introduce centurions to SM. They are what terminators should have been but everyone already has a ton of dust covered terminators so changing their stats wouldn't sell any new models. There has always been a need to house-rule the things that don't work for your group. In my experience when something seems too powerful it usually becomes "no fun" to use anymore. So we don't or it gets changed/fixed. If a game isn't fun for both sides there is no point. Some people like tournaments but to me it would seem like making my hobby like going to work.
The randomish selection has more relation to building a custom specific-fluff list than netlists.
Ever wanted to run Jack-heavy pStriker? Or throw in some Gun Mages *and* Trenchers with Nemo? Or a Storm infantry with a Memo, light on Heavies? The game does a great job of guiding list building towards the fluff as written (Caine and his drinking buddies!), but if you want to get off the beaten paths, you either min-max some gimmick or get rolled over.
In WMH, it felt like even picking the wrong Heavy, or having one too many Jacks, was a nigh-autolose.
In 40k, if I take a Razorback instead of a Rhino, it'll change things, but won't destroy my whole army.
As for options, i don't know whether a WMH faction or 40k Codex has more unit entries, but 40k has far more options easily.
If I run Stormblades, I can take them small, large, plus 1/2 weapons, plus leader (I think, been forever). So (2)(3)(2) options, or 24.
Marines.
5-10 in a unit (6 options there)
One of 4 special weapons (5 options)
Sarge can be Vet (2 options)
Sarge can take one of four Power weapons. (5 options)
And much, much more. But we're already at 300, so I figure I'll stop listing.
You might say the options don't really matter. I think the Tac squad options matter more than Stormblade options.
But the real difference, to me, is that the options exist.
In WMH, its the large or small squad. Nothing in between. Gotta pick the exact right option, though, because every point in list selection is pivitol. You're choosing between the small team and the large team.
In 40k, you pick the exact count you want. Bob took a railgun round to the chest before the game? Field 9. 14 points won't make a huge difference in most lists.
rhinosaur wrote: Like some others have said in GW's defense - any game that is this open ended and varied is nearly impossible to balance perfectly. That said, they could do a better job. I've played this game since 2nd and it has never been without the ability to abuse the rules. In their eyes it is perfectly balanced - to sell the models. The newest stuff only sells a lot if it is fun to use and that usually means killy. The constant cycle of different aspects of the game being powerful is obvious - assault - transports - shooting - now the giant models that don't even belong at this scale. Instead of fixing something that doesn't work they make new stuff because in the end they must sell toys to survive. There was no need to introduce centurions to SM. They are what terminators should have been but everyone already has a ton of dust covered terminators so changing their stats wouldn't sell any new models. There has always been a need to house-rule the things that don't work for your group. In my experience when something seems too powerful it usually becomes "no fun" to use anymore. So we don't or it gets changed/fixed. If a game isn't fun for both sides there is no point. Some people like tournaments but to me it would seem like making my hobby like going to work.
All very reasonable, except not everyone has the luxury of gaming in a steady social group, some people game in an environment where they're playing against strangers or people who they don't know well, and it is near impossible to house rule in those situations.
Nobody asks for or expects perfect balance, but I don't think it is coincidence that the games that are perceived as most balanced are the ones where the designers are engaged with the public and make a concerted effort to maintain the game through FAQ, Errata and even retrospective changes.
RunicFIN wrote: Title is pretty self explanatory. Firstly, don't jump the gun, read what is being said with thought is what I ask. Arguing about something that hasn't even been said leads nowhere.
This is a rant and an attempt to understand some really flawed logic at the same time. This is all in the context of how the game currently is, what it could be is another topic as I am only interested in the logic that pertains to what and how things are right now, which is pretty much always the case with complaints. Reading this forum you can quickly see the general consesus of there being around 3 viable codices in the entire game ( Tau, Eldar, Necron. ) Everything else is supposedly crap, or mediocre at best. Not true, and here's why.
Complaining about codices in a stand-alone context
There is no point about complaining that your Astra Militarum can't handle Space Marines allied with The Wolves Unleashed on their own. There is no point to being pissed about your Blood Angels not being able to beat 3 Flyrants allied with Adamantine Lance. Why? Here's why:
Most of the complaining happens in a competitive context ( you don't need a competitive list for casual games, they are casual games, and that's it. ) However, who plays competitively with a mono Codex these days? Perhaps Necrons occasionally, but even the top Necron lists tend to have something allied. That's about it. Every competent IoM player uses the allied matrix to allow their list powerful combinations or counters to things their Codex can't handle on their own. So why even complain that in a competitive enviroment my Codex can't take on anyone mono, when no one plays mono competitively? And if you play casually you don't need a competitive list. There is simply no way out of this one so it's use as an argument could just aswell be stopped as it's based on a paradox as a whole. Secondly, the Tau and Eldar codices remain updated and their next iterations will surely be brought down in power asfar as I'm concerned. We should see how things are then, and it's supposed to happen this year.
Either complain in a casual context where there is no need for competitiveness, or talk in the competitive context where monocodex armies are rarely played and triumph even less, making complaining about a monocodex builds power abysmally pointless. You don't get to pick the worst of both, unless you want to be paradoxical ofcourse. But we can't have that, since we're all pseudointellectual experts of pretty much everything around here.
You can have competitive Blood Angels. You can have competitive Astra Militarum. You can have competitive Sisters of Battle. Because in this game, currently, you play competitive lists with allies and multiple detachments and codices, and that's that.
Your argument here is that "your army X isn't uncompetitive, you're doing it wrong by not playing army X+Y".
Well, several problems here.
First, there's a fundamental problem if, to have any semblance of balance, you need to play multiple armies and not just one. That's an issue in and of itself.
Second, I don't want to play with allies, I want to play with Imperial Guard, why should I *have* to play Space Marines too in order to have a decent game? That's a crutch.
Third, it's still very clear GW aren't writing codex books with allies in mind, they're still being written as self-contained armies, not as components of a larger "meta" army.
Fourth, you do see mono-faction armies work competitively. Eldar, Necrons, and Daemons certainly manage it quite well.
Fifth, even with allies, you don't see a lot of these armies placing well in tournaments.
Complaining that a unit is not competitive
Yet another bit you see all the time. Certainly true with units that are undeniably bad ( Mutilators, I'm looking at you ) but almost daily you can see someone saying a unit that can infact perform being useless. Most of the time I attribute this to the player just being clueless on how to play such a unit on a general level, let alone with a synergized army. However there is a clear persisting mindset among your average players, that are really nothing special. Those who make up 98% of us wargamers, myself included. It would appear people judge a units effectiveness or how competitive it is based on an enviroment they themselves will never ever actually be in. This ever receeding, counter argument dodging bubble of ignorance, based on a theorized match inwhich the opponent is a perfect computer of a man ( yes, that's intentional ) and makes no mistake, countering everything you do perfectly, rendering unit in question useless.
Guess what? You're most likely the 98%. You're not in the top tables of ETC competing against Nick Nanavati in tooth and nail matches of tactical genius. No, you're most likely participating in local tournaments, playing with your friends, or even participating in the larger tournaments but never reaching the absolute top. So why do you judge a units competitiveness based on like you were? It's oxymoronic. Your friends mostly aren't 5 Sean Naydens either, they are also the 98% who make mistakes, not to mention the countless other factors affecting the course of a game. If you think you can't win with Blood Angels because the hypothetical Nickean Naydenvati hybrid android will crush you in his/its perfect match where everything goes the way you think it goes before the match has even taken place, fix your brain, because you're thinking wrong and not even remotely realistically.
I've beaten many general cookiecutter competitive lists with my Blood Angels. There is a Tau & Eldar player in my group that has beaten me once ( my Dark Angels, Blood Angels and CSM that is. ) I've seen Daemonkin already basically walk over a Reclamation Legion with Canoptek Harvest. I've been beaten by 9 Khorne Blood Slaughterers while playing my tournament Chaos Daemons. I've seen a Tau player win a local tournament with his casual Tau list by just being a good player, without a single Riptide, against armies such as gravspam White Scars. I've had an experienced Astra Militarum player dominate me with a mono codex list while wielding my Necrons with the previous Codex. I've seen amazing out of the box combinations dominate the cookiecutter in the biggest tournaments in the world. Stuff happens, and the stuff that doesn't work in the top tables of the largest tournaments of the world doesn't mean they don't work for you. You're most likely not in the 2%, so start thinking in your own context, where you and most of your opponents are the 98%. Why think that something will never work in a gaming enviroment you will never ever be in most likely. I press again, this only considering units that can actually perform when their user isn't a complete tool, not things like Mutilators. Personally I play the underdog armies as I find it fun. I also think the best way to develop as a player is to learn to deal with the most opfotm gak with some of the lowest powered codices around. You will then eventually learn to deal with said challenges while having the most barebone tools. Now imagine what happens when you then switch to a top tier Codex with an equally cheesy build? Exactly, you will crush the opponent who is used to his fancy tools. How could you not, you've done it before with a crappier army already.
Ok, I'm going to start by saying that I have played against players of this caliber and in large events over my 40k hobby life and won my share of victories up and down the US west coast. Lets also make it known that these events also aren't playing the same game as the rest of us, with unique missions, different objectives, and usually unique house rules that don't apply everywhere else, and often with the same core group of people over and over for several years.
You're attributing a lot of hyperbole to people. To be fair, there's a lot of hyperbole out there, but nobody is saying Blood Angels can't ever possibly win against certain armies or whatnot. However, is not at all impossible to look at general odds and come to the conclusion that, most of the time, given said odds and abilities, that one side or another will be at a marked disadvantage, and that, player skill being equal, the preponderance of wins and losses will be stilted. And guess what? We largely see that played out in tournaments.
The funniest bit. The 2% make things like Lictors and Scouts win in the top tables, the very units the 98% complain about, and that makes them the 2%. A fact.
The Lictors and Scouts were, effectively, extraneous bits in an an event that did used *significantly* different missions and house rules from "normal" 40k. The core of these armies also still worked off of very tried and true units. Multiple flying hive tyrants and psykers with select hammer units like Grav centurions.
Ultimately, we're also talking about a game that GW has openly proclaimed is not a competitive, balanced ruleset, and is not intended to be. They've made no bones about the fact that the game isn't a very good "game", it's a framework for creating "narrative" fun bits with plastic army men
Bharring wrote: The randomish selection has more relation to building a custom specific-fluff list than netlists.
Ever wanted to run Jack-heavy pStriker? Or throw in some Gun Mages *and* Trenchers with Nemo? Or a Storm infantry with a Memo, light on Heavies? The game does a great job of guiding list building towards the fluff as written (Caine and his drinking buddies!), but if you want to get off the beaten paths, you either min-max some gimmick or get rolled over.
In WMH, it felt like even picking the wrong Heavy, or having one too many Jacks, was a nigh-autolose.
In 40k, if I take a Razorback instead of a Rhino, it'll change things, but won't destroy my whole army.
As for options, i don't know whether a WMH faction or 40k Codex has more unit entries, but 40k has far more options easily.
If I run Stormblades, I can take them small, large, plus 1/2 weapons, plus leader (I think, been forever). So (2)(3)(2) options, or 24.
Marines.
5-10 in a unit (6 options there)
One of 4 special weapons (5 options)
Sarge can be Vet (2 options)
Sarge can take one of four Power weapons. (5 options)
And much, much more. But we're already at 300, so I figure I'll stop listing.
You might say the options don't really matter. I think the Tac squad options matter more than Stormblade options.
But the real difference, to me, is that the options exist.
In WMH, its the large or small squad. Nothing in between. Gotta pick the exact right option, though, because every point in list selection is pivitol. You're choosing between the small team and the large team.
In 40k, you pick the exact count you want. Bob took a railgun round to the chest before the game? Field 9. 14 points won't make a huge difference in most lists.
Good points definitely, but I still maintain that you never see the majority of the options. I think amount of options is a decent argument if they're all relatively balanced with each other, but in 40k people quickly work out the best option and that's what you see 95% of the time.
But you're right about WMH that you do sometimes have to have the right combinations, but then different combinations mean that almost every model in the game is playable in some circumstance or combination. In 40k if something's bad, tough.
MWHistorian wrote: I'm a fluff player primarily. I've never been to a tournament and have no desire to.
However, the level of unbalance in the game was enough to push me out.
I'm in it for the stories (narrative) but when I see a list that's fits the fluff and very story based be near useless on the table, something's wrong. It kicks me out of the narrative.
Instead of theme based armies kicking butt, we see "My Necron, Eldar, deamon alliance stomps all other armies" nonsense. It ruins my biggest reason for playing. The narrative.
Also, "just use a bunch of armies together" doesn't work on a practical level because the cost of codexes is too high for many people. (especially beginners)
So, what I'm saying is, that a well written rule set with armies that are balance internally and externally would benefit casual and competitive players equally. At doesn't take away from the 'casual' and adds to both.
Basically this. If the models I want to use are crap on the table, then I either have to use them and lose a lot (not fun), or use stronger models (which I don't want to use, and may not even own). Either way, I'm not having a good time.
Azreal13 wrote: All very reasonable, except not everyone has the luxury of gaming in a steady social group, some people game in an environment where they're playing against strangers or people who they don't know well, and it is near impossible to house rule in those situations.
Nobody asks for or expects perfect balance, but I don't think it is coincidence that the games that are perceived as most balanced are the ones where the designers are engaged with the public and make a concerted effort to maintain the game through FAQ, Errata and even retrospective changes.
Agreed. Not knowing your opponents would be tough for me. Just listening to the other games going on, it is easy to pick out who I wouldn't enjoy a game against and it is unfortunate. A completely balanced game must have fixed armies on a grid like chess. 40k can be skewed just by a player who doesn't measure properly. There are too many variables but it could be better. Using the stat line to make units different as opposed to 50+ special rules would be a start.
How hard would it be for GW to simply have one guy just for FAQs and errata? Maybe they already do, but if so, he is lame. I don't play 7th (stayed with 5th)but even I hear a few things that are in obvious need for change. All it would take is "yes the serpent shield was meant to be 6 inches not 60". Other times it wouldn't be so easy like with grav weapons. From what I have read they are something that goes against balance. Like the old Choppa rule (worst rule ever) from 3rd and 4th that limited saves to 4+. These kind of things break the balance when units are based on a point system. Higher armour makes something more valuable and now higher armour value just means it is easier to kill. The "big" (they belong in epic) models that have been introduced to 28mm have skewed everything as well. The game doesn't seem to have an identity anymore. What level of warfare is it trying to represent? Tables are so choked with models that movement is impossible/pointless.
Yoyoyo wrote: Why not try playing with alternate formats like Kill Team and Combat Patrol? Alternate terrain setups? Alternate mission rules?
Even chess isn't balanced... IIRC, white holds a small advantage by moving first. Good luck balancing a glorious mess like 40k!
Because not everyone has the luxury of a gaming group that you can experiment with that stuff. If you rely on pickup games, you Mingus not get much chance to mess around with stuff like that. And just because you can't achieve perfect balance in 40k, doesn't excuse the fact that GW make almost no effort to balance their game in any way.
40k players can afford $200 superheavies that break the game. I'm pretty sure they can afford 10 minutes to read rules you can download online for free.
Yoyoyo wrote: 40k players can afford $200 superheavies that break the game. I'm pretty sure they can afford 10 minutes to read rules you can download online for free.
Yeah every 40k player can spend $200 at the drop of a hat, not a generalisation at all.
Also, money wasn't even the point of what I was saying. If you rely on pickup games you're far more likely to come across people who refuse to change the way they play or try new ways of playing than if you are part of a group who plays lots of different ways.
I've turned up at the shop with my 1850 points of shiny new army. You're a complete stranger to me, how exactly do you expect me to agree to play a 200pt Kill Team game I have no inclination to play?
The fallacy of the infinite number of potential opponents is a terrible one, most of us have to make do with what we can.
How about this. I show up on Thursdays, and play other people who also like to play skirmish and smaller games so I don't have to deal with someone's shiny and poorly balanced 1850pt army.
How hard is that? It takes a minimum of organization.
ImAGeek wrote: f you rely on pickup games you're far more likely to come across people who refuse to change the way they play or try new ways of playing than if you are part of a group who plays lots of different ways.
Well, that's why people play on groups -- more cooperation, more flexibility, more fun. Even most of the tourney guys know each other. It's a group of sorts. Kind of a lesson there.
Social pressure to be a good partner also discourages people who are actively trying to break the game in order to win.
Yoyoyo wrote: How about this. I show up on Thursdays, and play other people who also like to play skirmish and smaller games so I don't have to deal with someone's shiny and poorly balanced 1850pt army.
How hard is that? It takes a minimum of organization.
ImAGeek wrote: f you rely on pickup games you're far more likely to come across people who refuse to change the way they play or try new ways of playing than if you are part of a group who plays lots of different ways.
Well, that's why people play on groups -- more cooperation, more flexibility, more fun. Even most of the tourney guys know each other. It's a group of sorts. Kind of a lesson there.
Not everyone has that luxury. So not really a lesson.
MWHistorian wrote: I'm a fluff player primarily. I've never been to a tournament and have no desire to.
However, the level of unbalance in the game was enough to push me out.
I'm in it for the stories (narrative) but when I see a list that's fits the fluff and very story based be near useless on the table, something's wrong. It kicks me out of the narrative.
Instead of theme based armies kicking butt, we see "My Necron, Eldar, deamon alliance stomps all other armies" nonsense. It ruins my biggest reason for playing. The narrative.
Also, "just use a bunch of armies together" doesn't work on a practical level because the cost of codexes is too high for many people. (especially beginners)
So, what I'm saying is, that a well written rule set with armies that are balance internally and externally would benefit casual and competitive players equally. At doesn't take away from the 'casual' and adds to both.
Basically this. If the models I want to use are crap on the table, then I either have to use them and lose a lot (not fun), or use stronger models (which I don't want to use, and may not even own). Either way, I'm not having a good time.
Exactly! First I have to choose between the models that I like and the models that are actually good. With how expensive GW models are, I shouldn't have to choose between the models I really like, and the models with rules that are actually good. Then they'll put out a new codex in a year, and put out a new edition the year after that, and what's good and what's crap completely changes, so suddenly a list that was somewhat competitive now has parts that have to be replaced to keep it from totally sucking. And then, if I decide I'm sick of this spiral of spending and don't want to invest hundreds of dollars in stupid crap models I'm not wild about that are just going to get nerfed next edition anyway, THEN I get to be a "casual gamer" and start losing all the time and have condescending holes tell me that I need to "learn to how to play the game, bro." It's not just balancing issues, it's the constant dance of power creep and nerfing, combined with tossing in new stuff that completely wrecks whatever semblance of balance the game had.
MWHistorian wrote: I'm a fluff player primarily. I've never been to a tournament and have no desire to.
However, the level of unbalance in the game was enough to push me out.
I'm in it for the stories (narrative) but when I see a list that's fits the fluff and very story based be near useless on the table, something's wrong. It kicks me out of the narrative.
Instead of theme based armies kicking butt, we see "My Necron, Eldar, deamon alliance stomps all other armies" nonsense. It ruins my biggest reason for playing. The narrative.
Also, "just use a bunch of armies together" doesn't work on a practical level because the cost of codexes is too high for many people. (especially beginners)
So, what I'm saying is, that a well written rule set with armies that are balance internally and externally would benefit casual and competitive players equally. At doesn't take away from the 'casual' and adds to both.
Basically this. If the models I want to use are crap on the table, then I either have to use them and lose a lot (not fun), or use stronger models (which I don't want to use, and may not even own). Either way, I'm not having a good time.
Exactly! First I have to choose between the models that I like and the models that are actually good. With how expensive GW models are, I shouldn't have to choose between the models I really like, and the models with rules that are actually good. Then they'll put out a new codex in a year, and put out a new edition the year after that, and what's good and what's crap completely changes, so suddenly a list that was somewhat competitive now has parts that have to be replaced to keep it from totally sucking. And then, if I decide I'm sick of this spiral of spending and don't want to invest hundreds of dollars in stupid crap models I'm not wild about that are just going to get nerfed next edition anyway, THEN I get to be a "casual gamer" and start losing all the time and have condescending holes tell me that I need to "learn to how to play the game, bro." It's not just balancing issues, it's the constant dance of power creep and nerfing, combined with tossing in new stuff that completely wrecks whatever semblance of balance the game had.
Tsk tsk, should have had more money, bro. Then you could have bought more models and codexes. This game isn't for plebs, dontchaknow?
That's kind of the point of alt formats, get off the hamster wheel of spending and power creep issues. Aside from skirmish you have formats like highlander. I don't get the hostility towards them -- it's the same ruleset.
It should be noted some people LIKE reaping the advantages of spending and power creep. That is another good reason to get away from it all.
Yoyoyo wrote: That's kind of the point of alt formats, get off the hamster wheel of spending and power creep issues. Aside from skirmish you have formats like highlander. I don't get the hostility towards them -- it's the same ruleset.
It should be noted some people LIKE reaping the advantages of spending and power creep. That is another good reason to get away from it all.
On a more serious note, I wish that there was greater accessibility to the rules for 40k. Even if you're looking at just playing Kill-Team or Combat Patrol, you're looking at the core rulebook and a $50 codex. Obviously, you can circumvent some of this cost with eBay and digital copies, but that's still greater than $50 for a small skirmish game. The one-size-fits all of the new rules tends to push games bigger so you can make the most of the significant investment in rules, but I think what results in feeling of a lack of value in rules that get recycled at a pretty frequent pace and bare immense similarity to their predecessors. This has always been a problem with GW rules products, but the 7th edition era of 40k has really exacerbated it to the point where even die-hard fans are balking at prices of rules alone.
Out of curiosity, do you feel like the allies matrix has allowed GW to actually be more lazy in regards to codex balances?
But anyways, the point of my question is really "Are some codexes better written or balanced/viable based on not having as many allies answers to specific things? Do you feel like the allies matrix provides GW with an easy cop-out so they don't necessarily 'need' to work as hard at balancing a lot of codexes? Been wondering about this awhile now, and I'm curious what you and others on Dakka think.
I'm balancing between two options as I do not know for certain. One would be a reason to allow more diverse armies and give people a "reason" as in incentive to buy more miniatures. GW is a business afterall and their main income is miniatures, and many of their decision are quite transparent on this fact ( Daemonkin is basically there to sell the new Bloodthirster the second it came out, and the book, ofcourse. ) The other one is to allow the game to become so diverse that a sort of pseudobalance is achieved - the variety is so huge that defeating everything automatically becomes more difficult. Meaning kind of an easy way out of rules design. Then again, they have stated they don't care about game balance that much. They also state, in vaurious enviroments that they want to deliver the best Warhammer 40,000 experience they can.
These 2 statements contradict eachother. And I don't put much weight on official statements of any company really, they rarely are even close to a naked truth, not in the good, and not in the bad.
Which by the way is an actual thing I've noticed. The more bloated the game gets, the more diverse it gets, and less easier it is to dominate -everything- in the game, resulting in said "pseudobalance."
To answer the latter question, certain codices are certainly better balanced to function without allies competitively than others. For example, the best allround codices in the game are all Xenos. HoweverIoM has the largest BB allying options, resulting in possibilities to compete.
And for the record, I just spent the last hour before logging in debating what GW does wrong, and trying to elaborate it an back up my claims to a guy I know who is apparently fine with everything GW does, whereas I'm not fine with multiple things regarding GW's business practices and the game itself. I am, however, still in the spectrum where the game is fun for me and I enjoy it ( as it's been like this and worse even, before. ) So I'm not blind. In this thread however I am talking in the now, and in the context of "how things are right now in practice."
Yes, it's fine to be unhappy about poor balance. And a poor balance it is. That still doesn't make a Vendetta bad, and SoB unplayable. I can't articulate this any clearer, so if someone doesn't comprehend this point and the context then I guess the rest of us are out of luck.
Out of curiosity, do you feel like the allies matrix has allowed GW to actually be more lazy in regards to codex balances?
But anyways, the point of my question is really "Are some codexes better written or balanced/viable based on not having as many allies answers to specific things? Do you feel like the allies matrix provides GW with an easy cop-out so they don't necessarily 'need' to work as hard at balancing a lot of codexes? Been wondering about this awhile now, and I'm curious what you and others on Dakka think.
I'm balancing between two options as I do not know for certain. One would be a reason to allow more diverse armies and give people a "reason" as in incentive to buy more miniatures. GW is a business afterall and their main income is miniatures, and many of their decision are quite transparent on this fact ( Daemonkin is basically there to sell the new Bloodthirster the second it came out, and the book, ofcourse. ) The other one is to allow the game to become so diverse that a sort of pseudobalance is achieved - the variety is so huge that defeating everything automatically becomes more difficult.
Which by the way is an actual thing I've noticed. The more bloated the game gets, the more diverse it gets, and less easier it is to dominate -everything- in the game, resulting in said "pseudobalance."
To answer the latter question, certain codices are certainly better balanced to function without allies competitively than others. For example, the best allround codices in the game are all Xenos. HoweverIoM has the largest BB allying options, resulting in possibilities to compete.
I pretty much agree with your standpoint,
RunicFIN. The one thing I'd add is that allies and the ally matrix makes balancing really tricky, because one faction might be very weak by themselves, but be an excellent ally. Does that make them a good faction, or a bad one? Should every faction be playable equally well on its own? I'm not sure about the answer; I'm not sure if there IS a good answer.
Really, there are no factions that have a full complement of models in the game that are so terrible as to be unwinnable in any but the most competitive game settings; and none at all that can't be enjoyably played as an allied faction. Note that I'm not including factions like Inquisition, which just don't have enough models to make an army.
Some factions are have very strong units or formations, but that only matters if players are building their lists to be only have the very best units their faction offers. I'm not saying that this isn't a legitimate way of playing the game. However, that the people who want to just play homogenous armies inevitably end up playing each other anyhow -- wraiths and spiders will just end up playing the folks who want to play serpents and firedragons, FMC armies, or markerlight gunlines. These players usually end up being mediocre players will great lists, and will generally have a poor win ratio against great players with smarter, more versatile lists, but those matchups don't happen a ton outside of tournaments, because the latter players have their own play partners and generally don't relish rehashing predictable games.
I do infact think myself, that the days of judging an armys performance on a monocodex level in this game are gone and perhaps not even intended any longer. It was an odd change back when allies were introduced, and it took me a while to get used to it. These days I don't even think in the mono codex context any more. Why would I? In practice, using allies I think is more common than not using them ( or for the very least, mixing formations and different detachment that allow you completely different shenanigans to that of a single CAD. )
I personally hate completely ridicilous armies myself, though. I don't ally Necrons with Inquisitors or Eldar with Tyranids or other silly things. With IoM I ally IoM that somehow makes sense, and with my Daemons/CSM I ally them to eachother. I did consider getting a Knight for my CSM as it's somewhat plausible to have a Chaos Knight, but in the end I decided no, I won't do it as on a game mechanical level it's still an IoM unit fighting alongside my traitors. I also don't ally certain Xenos with eachother that I find too ridicilous ( Necrons & Eldar for example is too stupid for me personally. )
I can't imagine any reason for Necron and Eldar to fight alongside each other, Apocalypse or no
On the bright side, you can add a Bloodthirster to your CSM now That will make a fine addition. One thing though, I've taken a look at how it goes together and such, and I can't imagine how to possibly transport that.
One big benefit that IoM has is that all their freaking models fit into carrying cases nicely. I got 1,000 points into a DE army and stopped, because the models are too hard to take between upstairs and downstairs, much less to anyone's house or a store LOL. Well, ok, and I sort of got sidetracked by Blood Angels, but that's a whole other thing
Talys wrote: I can't imagine any reason for Necron and Eldar to fight alongside each other, Apocalypse or no
Good combos. For a very long time a very popular combo for nids was the normal nids army with necron ally to get a chariot lord and scyth immortals. If the combo is good it isn't hard to imagine why people would use it. In fact it is hard to imagine why they wouldn't.
Talys wrote: I can't imagine any reason for Necron and Eldar to fight alongside each other, Apocalypse or no
Good combos. For a very long time a very popular combo for nids was the normal nids army with necron ally to get a chariot lord and scyth immortals. If the combo is good it isn't hard to imagine why people would use it. In fact it is hard to imagine why they wouldn't.
RunicFIN wrote: Hmm, nah. Next to that, if you think everything I said is invalid you must live in a completely different dimension to the rest of us. But I won't continue with you further as I've seen it a hundred times what it means to actually try and converse with you. You're entitled to your opinion, no less valid than mine.
You seriously don't see why your opinion is invalid here? Your entire argument is based on the premise that only serious hardcore competitive players in competitive tournaments need to worry about playing with good lists, and other players shouldn't care if their lists aren't powerful enough. This is so absolutely ridiculous I'm amazed that you managed to write a whole post about it. Even "casual" players care about how well their lists perform, and those players are entirely justified in expecting to have an equal chance of winning when they bring their single-codex armies.
I <3 Peregrine.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Yoyoyo wrote: Why not try playing with alternate formats like Kill Team and Combat Patrol? Alternate terrain setups? Alternate mission rules?
Even chess isn't balanced... IIRC, white holds a small advantage by moving first. Good luck balancing a glorious mess like 40k!
In chess you are supposed to trade off using white and black to make up for the advantage.
Yoyoyo wrote: Why not try playing with alternate formats like Kill Team and Combat Patrol? Alternate terrain setups? Alternate mission rules?
Even chess isn't balanced... IIRC, white holds a small advantage by moving first. Good luck balancing a glorious mess like 40k!
So let's not even try, huh! That's great.
In Chess they balance by alternating playing black and white. In WH40K they just give up and say "play with whatever you want".
To the OP, I feel that you make incorrect statement there regarding the tournaments. They already have their own defined set of rules that do not follow the rules laid in the rulebook. They dictate how many allies, formations and whatnot you can have, vs "play with whatever you want", etc.
When 6th edition arrived and Eldar + Tau were fresh out, the immediate rise in power level of those books as mono builds was huge. Looking at the tournament results shows mono Eldar doing very well. Call it Competitive vs Casual, I call it lazy design. They do not even try.
Naw wrote: So let's not even try, huh! That's great.
Ha! You certainly CAN try!
However, rather than take some responsibility on ourselves to play with more cover, bigger tables, houserules, different FOCs or missions, or anything else, some people would rather just complain on the internet. No surprises there really lol!
I thought the point was that people are paying a great deal for the rules, gaming aids, and miniatures for 40k and thus expect some level of craftsmanship put into the rules other than "here's what we came up (aka we took the old rules and changed the points value plus one other thing)... these units are super cool and do these awesome things, pew pew"
RunicFIN wrote: Hmm, nah. Next to that, if you think everything I said is invalid you must live in a completely different dimension to the rest of us. But I won't continue with you further as I've seen it a hundred times what it means to actually try and converse with you. You're entitled to your opinion, no less valid than mine.
You seriously don't see why your opinion is invalid here? Your entire argument is based on the premise that only serious hardcore competitive players in competitive tournaments need to worry about playing with good lists, and other players shouldn't care if their lists aren't powerful enough. This is so absolutely ridiculous I'm amazed that you managed to write a whole post about it. Even "casual" players care about how well their lists perform, and those players are entirely justified in expecting to have an equal chance of winning when they bring their single-codex armies.
I <3 Peregrine.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Yoyoyo wrote: Why not try playing with alternate formats like Kill Team and Combat Patrol? Alternate terrain setups? Alternate mission rules?
Even chess isn't balanced... IIRC, white holds a small advantage by moving first. Good luck balancing a glorious mess like 40k!
In chess you are supposed to trade off using white and black to make up for the advantage.
Peregrine, although often brusque, is 100% right. The idea that only "WAAC" competitive people play good lists and everyone else plays whatever they want is so laughably ridiculous I can't imagine anyone saying it and being serious. As I already illustrated in my previous post, a gakky set of rules with gakky balance punishes casual players much more than competitive ones, because the casual player is more likely to pick a unit based on looks/how it fits into their theme without caring about the rules, and as a result get screwed harder when the unit is gak on the table.
This is no longer something that can be debated, it's a fact. And yet some people still can't see it and argue until they're blue in the face about how it's okay to take gakky units if you're casual because you're casual. That's not how it works. Casual doesn't mean being a total scrub.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Draco wrote: 40k is not bad for a casual play. It is bad when a casual player plays with a competitive player.
This is outright false and has been shown to be false many times now. It's bad when Casual Player A takes a bad unit that fits their army and Casual Player B takes a good unit that fits their army, because a good game wouldn't have one unit be vastly superior to the other.
Naw wrote: So let's not even try, huh! That's great.
Ha! You certainly CAN try!
However, rather than take some responsibility on ourselves to play with more cover, bigger tables, houserules, different FOCs or missions, or anything else, some people would rather just complain on the internet. No surprises there really lol!
It's a completely ridiculous standpoint to blame the players. Why should we take responsibility for GWs complete ineptitude when it comes to rules writin? We shouldn't have to do loads of stuff ourselves to fix the game to a point where it's playable, I should be able to turn up at a club, play a game with someone I've never met, and have a decent time. Any other miniatures game accomplishes it perfectly well. And for a lower price too, as WayneTheGame points out below.
Naw wrote: So let's not even try, huh! That's great.
Ha! You certainly CAN try!
However, rather than take some responsibility on ourselves to play with more cover, bigger tables, houserules, different FOCs or missions, or anything else, some people would rather just complain on the internet. No surprises there really lol!
It's a completely ridiculous standpoint to blame the players. Why should we take responsibility for GWs complete ineptitude when it comes to rules writin? We shouldn't have to do loads of stuff ourselves to fix the game to a point where it's playable, I should be able to turn up at a club, play a game with someone I've never met, and have a decent time. Any other miniatures game accomplishes it perfectly well.
This exactly. You don't find any problem at all with paying a ton of money on rules and then having to sit down and house rule swathes of it to fix glaring issues? Really? You don't see a problem with that? Rules and one Codex, not even factoring in supplements or dataslates, is $135USD. For that price, where I can buy entire armies WITH rules from GW's competitors, you're damn right I would expect the rules to be the highest quality, properly playtested, properly balanced and usable right out of the box with zero problems.
Casual players want a competitive list out of their casual list. Well, tough luck. Not happening in this game. Not currently, probably not ever. One can always hope and talk about how things should be ofcourse, I find that it will do very little however.
Still, my main point was people who complain a unit does nothing while simultaneously the better players make them work and even competitive. Not like I can force you to talk about that instead of switching to the game having bad balance, which is given and not the original topic whatsoever.
As a sidenote, if someone can't win X by using Z, and someone else can, you indeed blame the player, and nothing else, because in a case where everything else is identical, he is the variable. And there is no way squirming around this one, eventhough someone will ofcourse try ( I bet saying the word car begins with a "c" would cause a counterargument here occasionally. )
All in all, units and codices are not always as bad as the most likely incompetent players make them seem, and that is a fact.
RunicFIN wrote: Casual players want a competitive list out of their casual list.
No, casual players want a BALANCED list out of their casual list. Besides, it's already been proven that a "casual list" isn't even a thing. What exactly is a "casual list"? Taking gak units just because? Is a player who takes an all Jetbike army casual or competitive? Is he competitive if he takes it because Jetbikes are good, but casual if he takes it because he likes the fluff of the Saim-Hann Craftworld?
There is not a black and white divide between the two.
No, casual players want a BALANCED list out of their casual list. Besides, it's already been proven that a "casual list" isn't even a thing. What exactly is a "casual list"? Taking gak units just because? Is a player who takes an all Jetbike army casual or competitive? Is he competitive if he takes it because Jetbikes are good, but casual if he takes it because he likes the fluff of the Saim-Hann Craftworld?
Most of the time I see this is when someone wants to play a bad list and wants to beat a good one with it and gets angry when he doesn't. Use whatever term you like, Wayne.
No, casual players want a BALANCED list out of their casual list. Besides, it's already been proven that a "casual list" isn't even a thing. What exactly is a "casual list"? Taking gak units just because? Is a player who takes an all Jetbike army casual or competitive? Is he competitive if he takes it because Jetbikes are good, but casual if he takes it because he likes the fluff of the Saim-Hann Craftworld?
Most of the time I see this is when someone wants to play a bad list and wants to beat a good one with it and gets angry when he doesn't. Use whatever term you like, Wayne.
Playing a bad list makes you a bad player, not a casual one. You can be casual and not be a total scrub.
No, casual players want a BALANCED list out of their casual list. Besides, it's already been proven that a "casual list" isn't even a thing. What exactly is a "casual list"? Taking gak units just because? Is a player who takes an all Jetbike army casual or competitive? Is he competitive if he takes it because Jetbikes are good, but casual if he takes it because he likes the fluff of the Saim-Hann Craftworld?
Most of the time I see this is when someone wants to play a bad list and wants to beat a good one with it and gets angry when he doesn't. Use whatever term you like, Wayne.
No it's not. It's when someone wants to run a themed list and actually be in with a chance of winning still, rather than shooting themselves in the foot because they prefer one unit to another.
How is this such a difficult concept to grasp for people?
Cool, those terms are also partially subjective. You may replace "casual" with "bad" in this instance. Most often I find the casual players are also bad, due to vaurious factors that come with playing the game "casually" - it doesn't necessarily mean they are just plain terrible, but it can also be lack of experience in the game, lack of knowledge of vaurious rarer units among other things.
No, casual players want a BALANCED list out of their casual list. Besides, it's already been proven that a "casual list" isn't even a thing. What exactly is a "casual list"? Taking gak units just because? Is a player who takes an all Jetbike army casual or competitive? Is he competitive if he takes it because Jetbikes are good, but casual if he takes it because he likes the fluff of the Saim-Hann Craftworld?
Most of the time I see this is when someone wants to play a bad list and wants to beat a good one with it and gets angry when he doesn't. Use whatever term you like, Wayne.
No it's not. It's when someone wants to run a themed list and actually be in with a chance of winning still, rather than shooting themselves in the foot because they prefer one unit to another.
How is this such a difficult concept to grasp for people?
To be fair to Runic I've seen a LOT of people in a LOT of games confuse "casual" with "bad play". How/why they make that connection I don't know, but I've seen it often enough in D&D, tabletop games, WoW, etc. that I'm not at all surprised that Runic seems to be equating a "casual player" with a scrub who wants to throw any random garbage together and expect to do well and then cry about it when it doesn't work.
RunicFIN wrote: Cool, those terms are also partially subjective. You may replace "casual" with "bad" in this instance. Most often I find the casual players are also bad, due to vaurious factors that come with playing the game "casually" - it doesn't necessarily mean they are just plain terrible, but it can also be lack of experience in the game, lack of knowledge of vaurious rarer units among other things.
Ridiculous. Playing themed lists or preferring some units to others doesn't make someone a bad player. You're talking out your arse now.
No, casual players want a BALANCED list out of their casual list. Besides, it's already been proven that a "casual list" isn't even a thing. What exactly is a "casual list"? Taking gak units just because? Is a player who takes an all Jetbike army casual or competitive? Is he competitive if he takes it because Jetbikes are good, but casual if he takes it because he likes the fluff of the Saim-Hann Craftworld?
Most of the time I see this is when someone wants to play a bad list and wants to beat a good one with it and gets angry when he doesn't. Use whatever term you like, Wayne.
No it's not. It's when someone wants to run a themed list and actually be in with a chance of winning still, rather than shooting themselves in the foot because they prefer one unit to another.
How is this such a difficult concept to grasp for people?
To be fair to Runic I've seen a LOT of people in a LOT of games confuse "casual" with "bad play". How/why they make that connection I don't know, but I've seen it often enough in D&D, tabletop games, WoW, etc. that I'm not at all surprised that Runic seems to be equating a "casual player" with a scrub who wants to throw any random garbage together and expect to do well and then cry about it when it doesn't work.
But it's been explained so many times in this thread alone.
ImAGeek wrote: No it's not. It's when someone wants to run a themed list and actually be in with a chance of winning still, rather than shooting themselves in the foot because they prefer one unit to another.
And currently in this game, that translates exactly to wanting to use a bad list and wanting to be able to beat a good one. But you talk in the idealistic context and I talk in the one that currently exist, and that's why there's a difference. Also, you don't get to say "no" to my anecdotal experiences.
ImAGeek wrote: No it's not. It's when someone wants to run a themed list and actually be in with a chance of winning still, rather than shooting themselves in the foot because they prefer one unit to another.
And currently in this game, that translates exactly to wanting to use a bad list and wanting to be able to beat a good one. But you talk in the idealistic context and I talk in the one that currently exist, and that's why there's a difference. Also, you don't get to say "no" to my anecdotal experiences.
I didn't say no to your anecdotal experience. I'm saying your anecdotal experiences are not representative of the whole. And it's still not about wanting to beat them. It's about wanting to have a fair chance at the game.
But, if the rules were actually worth a damn, surely you wouldn't have this distinction of 'good' and 'bad' lists? Or, at the very least, the gulf would be a lot narrower.
I guess I just find it ironic that GW has practically made "forge the narrative" into its motto, yet anyone trying to run a theme list is accused of "wanting to use a bad list and wanting to be able to beat a good one".
RunicFIN wrote: Cool, those terms are also partially subjective. You may replace "casual" with "bad" in this instance. Most often I find the casual players are also bad, due to vaurious factors that come with playing the game "casually" - it doesn't necessarily mean they are just plain terrible, but it can also be lack of experience in the game, lack of knowledge of vaurious rarer units among other things.
Ridiculous. Playing themed lists or preferring some units to others doesn't make someone a bad player. You're talking out your arse now.
It would appear you're cluelesss to the fact that playing something casually, in the actual meaning of the word, means using less time and effort than a more serious individual, be the subject whatever. And with less spent effort, time, examination and experience you inevitably become less skilled than the polar opposite. If you claim a casual player who plays 4 times a month is going to have the bigger winrate over a tournament dominator over the course of say, a hundred Warhammer 40,000 matches you are talking out of your arse instead.
Believe what you like, skill and knowledge come with experience, spending the time, effort, and ofcourse in the case of some, naturally. I agree to disagree with you and that's pretty much it.
RunicFIN wrote: Cool, those terms are also partially subjective. You may replace "casual" with "bad" in this instance. Most often I find the casual players are also bad, due to vaurious factors that come with playing the game "casually" - it doesn't necessarily mean they are just plain terrible, but it can also be lack of experience in the game, lack of knowledge of vaurious rarer units among other things.
Ridiculous. Playing themed lists or preferring some units to others doesn't make someone a bad player. You're talking out your arse now.
It would appear you're cluelesss to the fact that playing something casually, in the actual meaning of the word, means using less time and effort than a more serious individual, be the subject whatever. And with less spent effort, time, examination and experience you inevitably become less skilled than the polar opposite. If you claim a casual player who plays 4 times a month is going to have the bigger winrate over a tournament dominator over the course of say, a hundred Warhammer 40,000 you are talking out of your arse instead.
Believe what you like, skill and knowledge come with experience, spending the time, effort, and ofcourse in the case of some, naturally. I agree to disagree with you and that's pretty much it.
Casual is just a term you've been throwing around. It has no bearing on someone's skill at the game in the context you've been using it (as in people who play fluffy lists/don't play at tournaments etc). I'm sure there's people out there who are better than a lot of tournament players but still play casually. Casual doesn't equal worse player.
vipoid wrote: But, if the rules were actually worth a damn, surely you wouldn't have this distinction of 'good' and 'bad' lists? Or, at the very least, the gulf would be a lot narrower.
I guess I just find it ironic that GW has practically made "forge the narrative" into its motto, yet anyone trying to run a theme list is accused of "wanting to use a bad list and wanting to be able to beat a good one".
Yep, that is a big paradox but that's more about players I think. To me it's not an issue to want to play a theme list, it's fine. But if you complain that you can't beat Adamantine Lance with 3 Flyrants while playing footslogging Deathguard, it's just pointless to complain, in reality. If you're an idealist then yes, I guess the complaining can achieve... something. However, for the fifth time, that was not my point anyway.
My point is people complaining that a unit is bad when infact it is not, and they can't make it work while someone else can. They are the variable. Nothing else. Period.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
ImAGeek wrote: Casual is just a term you've been throwing around. It has no bearing on someone's skill at the game in the context you've been using it (as in people who play fluffy lists/don't play at tournaments etc). I'm sure there's people out there who are better than a lot of tournament players but still play casually. Casual doesn't equal worse player.
Not always, no. There might even be a tournament player who has retired and now plays casually. Casual as a term actually has most to do with time spent, look it up. And spending less time on something is just that, less time spent on something. Less time spent playing. Less time spent practicing and learning. More often than not, this directly translates to how good a player someone is or isn't. But not always, no.
vipoid wrote: But, if the rules were actually worth a damn, surely you wouldn't have this distinction of 'good' and 'bad' lists? Or, at the very least, the gulf would be a lot narrower.
I guess I just find it ironic that GW has practically made "forge the narrative" into its motto, yet anyone trying to run a theme list is accused of "wanting to use a bad list and wanting to be able to beat a good one".
Yep, that is a big paradox but that's more about players I think. To me it's not an issue to want to play a theme list, it's fine. But if you complain that you can't beat Adamantine Lance with 3 Flyrants while playing footslogging Deathguard, it's just pointless to complain, in reality. However, for the fifth time, that was not my point anyway.
My point is people complaining that a unit is bad when infact it is not, and they can't make it work while someone else can. They are the variable. Nothing else. Period.
The problem with your argument is that "footslogging Deathguard" is a fluffy, narative, themed list. I have no idea what Adamantine Lance is (I know what a Flyrant is) or if it's fluffy or not, but the point you're missing is that a fluffy list, footslogging Deathguard in this case, should not auto-lose against any other list in the game. The fact it does is a flaw of the GAME, not the person who wants to play a fluffy list. Especially because you can still build a fluffy list and have it be insanely good. Again, no idea what Adamantine Lance is but let's say that an "Adamantine Lance with 3 Flyrants" is fluffy in some way, whether in the actual fluff for the game or in someone's mind that they created a narrative around that force. Why should that list walk all over another fluffy list, just because the Adamatine Lance/Flyrant player happened to like better units in their narrative than the Deathguard player?
I agree that should not be the case. And not the point nor the original topic either. That's the last time I'll repeat that, and won't continue on this specific subtopic further.
The game has bad balance, yes. It sucks your themed list cant beat the ridicilously unfluffy tournament cheese, yes. Is the Vendetta/AM Codex bad because someone wielding it can't make it perform in "casual" games at all while someone dominates tournaments using them effecitvely? Not even remotely.
I also haven't stated that should be the case or that I find it ideal. All I said is I think in the context of reality, in the case of Warhammer 40,000 there is no point in wanting to win with a themed ( aside from a few exceptions ) list against a tournament/"competitive" one. It's just bashing your head against the wall and I don't see the point on a practical level. You gain nothing from it but perhaps some gaming experience, a little bit of fun until you're crushed, and depending on how competitive you are as a person, a foul mood.
You can replace "themed" with whatever term you find satisfactory that means a list that is built for purposes other than being competitive as the primary incentive, be it rule of cool, background, or just liking Heavy Bolters too much. You can replace "casual games" with whatever term you find satisfactory to describe a match that isn't a tooth and nail battle in a tournament wielding the most powerful builds around, but perhaps, a friendly match played mostly for the fun of playing or something similiar.
The only problem I have with people who ask for balance in all things is that they seem to not accept that some matchups just won't function.
"I love the concept of bolters, so here's 3 devastator squads with heavy bolters, six tac squads, the Primarch's Wrath captain, and a bunch of Sternguard"
"I love the concept of massive tanks. So here's six Baneblades."
Those two lists will never be on the same level, ever. Why should they be? Tanks aren't vulnerable to HMGs. Combi-meltas on the sternguard are about it, really.
Not covering your bases with appropriate wargear (in your example, some lascannons and/or melta to deal with tanks, or even fists with some way of getting around quickly) is a failing of the player and not the game.
What people are asking in this example is that a player's army has an appropriate selection of tools to deal with a variety of threats. No one in their right mind espousing better balance wants or expects an all grot army to defeat a Knight list.
In your example, if the marine player opted not to bring even a single dedicated anti-tank gun, they're going to fail against more than just a baneblade company.
Plus, your specific example also begs the question of whether or not superheavy tanks have any place in standard games of 40k, simply due to their all-or-nothing balance issues.
Only no one is going to fit 6 baneblades in to a 1500 army.
RunicFIN wrote: Casual players want a competitive list out of their casual list. Well, tough luck. Not happening in this game. Not currently, probably not ever. One can always hope and talk about how things should be ofcourse, I find that it will do very little however.
.
Only it is not like that. A WS player will cram his casual fluff list of grav bikers and it will be competitive. An eldar player will have to try hard and write some seriouse unbound list to get a non competitive list and even then ti will be a better then a bad list of other armies.
the Vendetta/AM Codex bad because someone wielding it can't make it perform in "casual" games at all while someone dominates tournaments using them effecitvely
Could you tell me where in the world did AM dominate tournaments in 7th ed and what were the different scenario rules to make that happen?
Blacksails wrote: Not covering your bases with appropriate wargear (in your example, some lascannons and/or melta to deal with tanks, or even fists with some way of getting around quickly) is a failing of the player and not the game.
What people are asking in this example is that a player's army has an appropriate selection of tools to deal with a variety of threats. No one in their right mind espousing better balance wants or expects an all grot army to defeat a Knight list.
In your example, if the marine player opted not to bring even a single dedicated anti-tank gun, they're going to fail against more than just a baneblade company.
Plus, your specific example also begs the question of whether or not superheavy tanks have any place in standard games of 40k, simply due to their all-or-nothing balance issues.
The problem I was trying to illustrate is that "balance" can hurt theme lists as badly as "imbalance," albeit through the vehicle of banning them rather than making them unable to compete.
Six Baneblades is just as much of a "theme" as footslogging Death Guard or all-bolter Marines.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Makumba wrote: Only no one is going to fit 6 baneblades in to a 1500 army.
RunicFIN wrote: I don't think there is a tabletop wargame in existence where all matchups possible in the entire game have a fair chance of winning all the others.
And Warhammer 40,000 certainly isn't, and never probably will be, among them. Hence I see idealism so pointless in practice in this case.
Literally every other game has a much closer gap between good and bad lists though, and most matchups have some kind of chance. No ones after perfect balance, just some kind of effort put into balancing the game.
RunicFIN wrote: I don't think there is a tabletop wargame in existence where all matchups possible in the entire game have a fair chance of winning all the others.
And Warhammer 40,000 certainly isn't, and never probably will be, among them. Hence I see idealism so pointless in practice in this case.
Literally every other game has a much closer gap between good and bad lists though, and most matchups have some kind of chance. No ones after perfect balance, just some kind of effort put into balancing the game.
I'll come and watch the Black Ogrun boarding parties lead by Mortenebra with a single Bonejack dominate your average Haley2 tournament build any day. The gap is just as bad.
The game in question is played with multiple lists for one very specific reason - certain matchups have no chance whatsoever against some. Ask any TO, that's what the double lists are for in this case. And occasionally the whole team doesn't have the tools to beat a certain opponent in a team tournament - that's when a player is, to quote the common term, thrown under the bus.
RunicFIN wrote: I don't think there is a tabletop wargame in existence where all matchups possible in the entire game have a fair chance of winning all the others.
And Warhammer 40,000 certainly isn't, and never probably will be, among them. Hence I see idealism so pointless in practice in this case.
Literally every other game has a much closer gap between good and bad lists though, and most matchups have some kind of chance. No ones after perfect balance, just some kind of effort put into balancing the game.
So when is it "balanced enough?" When all-bolter Tac Marines beat all-Baneblades? Where is the magical line in the sand where we can call it "balanced enough?"
The problem I was trying to illustrate is that "balance" can hurt theme lists as badly as "imbalance," albeit through the vehicle of banning them rather than making them unable to compete.
You didn't illustrate it well then.
Six Baneblades is just as much of a "theme" as footslogging Death Guard or all-bolter Marines.
Sure, and in a better ruleset with writers that playtested and cared two iotas for balanced gameplay, the general themes would be balanced given the players selected a mix of weaponry. All bolter marines should never be balanced against a variety of matchups, but foot marines with a variety of weapons designed to cover an array of enemies should be as competitive as a mech marine list, a drop pod marine list, a terminator marine list, and a bike marine list.
No one is saying a player should be able to blindly pull units out of a hat and never think about what weapons and upgrades should be given to them. However, those weapons and options should be appropriately costed, as should the units carrying them.
And once more, no one is expecting perfect balance. There will always be unfavourable matchups for different armies, but in a better designed game, the overall outcome would be dependent on player actions and decisions. In 40k's case, there's been a steady decrease in player influence through way too many random tables and unnecessary dice rolling.
The problem I was trying to illustrate is that "balance" can hurt theme lists as badly as "imbalance," albeit through the vehicle of banning them rather than making them unable to compete.
You didn't illustrate it well then.
Six Baneblades is just as much of a "theme" as footslogging Death Guard or all-bolter Marines.
Sure, and in a better ruleset with writers that playtested and cared two iotas for balanced gameplay, the general themes would be balanced given the players selected a mix of weaponry. All bolter marines should never be balanced against a variety of matchups, but foot marines with a variety of weapons designed to cover an array of enemies should be as competitive as a mech marine list, a drop pod marine list, a terminator marine list, and a bike marine list.
No one is saying a player should be able to blindly pull units out of a hat and never think about what weapons and upgrades should be given to them. However, those weapons and options should be appropriately costed, as should the units carrying them.
And once more, no one is expecting perfect balance. There will always be unfavourable matchups for different armies, but in a better designed game, the overall outcome would be dependent on player actions and decisions. In 40k's case, there's been a steady decrease in player influence through way too many random tables and unnecessary dice rolling.
But the problem is, then, that it is subjective. "Balance" becomes a line in the sand where the game is now "balanced enough." For some people, the game is Balanced Enough(tm) now, for others, when Knights are removed. For others, when Wave Serpents are toned down. For others, when Necrons no longer get Decurion. For others, when Flyrants have to walk. For some, all of these things and more.
The game may or may not need more balance, but to simply assert that it "does" while claiming such a subjective measure of balance is a bit silly. It's like saying "America should be more moral."
There is a distinct difference between poor balance, bad match ups and poor decisions.
Throwing all anti infantry weapons on your heavy weapon choices is a bad decision.
Taking an arc dodger list against a turret list in X Wing is a bad match up.
Taking a decent well rounded force with anti infantry, anti tank, speed and durability all featuring somewhere and still getting your arse handed to you by a Codex which just flat out has more efficient choices is poor balance.
Azreal13 wrote: There is a distinct difference between poor balance, bad match ups and poor decisions.
Throwing all anti infantry weapons on your heavy weapon choices is a bad decision.
Taking an arc dodger list against a turret list in X Wing is a bad match up.
Taking a decent well rounded force with anti infantry, anti tank, speed and durability all featuring somewhere and still getting your arse handed to you by a Codex which just flat out has more efficient choices is poor balance.
A decent well-rounded force with a little bit of everything will get crushed by a list that has a lot of one unit type. Try playing a TAC against Adamantium Lance or whathaveyou. You just don't have enough AT to stop it. No one ever will except another extreme list.
Or, for a converse example, try taking Adamantium Lance against all-airplane *anything*. Without AA guns, you'll get outmaneuvered and killed easily.
Very true. The fact that I hate to play against GK and lose against them every time. Does not make the GK codex OP, nor does it mean that the AM codex suddenly doesn't suck for 7th ed, just because GK are bad match up.
Oddly enough the most balanced and good army books were those were seen as super OP. Eldar right now. GK back in 6th. If it doesn't realy matter what you take out of a codex and it still works, then the codex is good. Other wise you just pray to avoid getting a DA or chaos style codex, and try to be happy with the kind of a stuff GK or nids got.
No, not really. The minutiae may be, but the big picture is most assuredly not. The IG book being pretty low on the totem pole is not subjective opinion about its balance. Ratlings, Ogryn, and Sentinels being terrible while Wyverns and Pask are nearly auto-include is not subjective opinion about balance. These are things we can breakdown, analyze, test, and collect data on. The details or debating a 5pts increase or decrease is where things start getting subjective, but I'd argue if you're debating about a change that small, its impact won't be too noticeable and the unit is likely fairly balanced.
"Balance" becomes a line in the sand where the game is now "balanced enough." For some people, the game is Balanced Enough(tm) now, for others, when Knights are removed. For others, when Wave Serpents are toned down. For others, when Necrons no longer get Decurion. For others, when Flyrants have to walk. For some, all of these things and more.
All of which can be explained by people liking or disliking things, and not understanding game mechanics and likewise how to balance something. Most people simply don't care enough the mechanics to form an informed opinion about what needs help and what doesn't. Even more people take a single anecdote or two about an army they lost against and claim its broken. These are opinions you dismiss.
I'd argue that balance would be everything you said just above, and many others. I could see Knights staying, but changed to be more reasonable in standard game sizes, but that's neither here nor there for the purpose of this discussion and my point.
The game may or may not need more balance, but to simply assert that it "does" while claiming such a subjective measure of balance is a bit silly. It's like saying "America should be more moral."
There's nothing subjective about saying the game needs more balance. It does. Whether or not you like it as it is is irrelevant to the claim that 40k is not a balanced game. You're conflating two arguments/points. The first being that 40k is not balanced and how/should they balance it, and the second being whether or not you're currently enjoying the game as it is. For some, like myself, the issues are connected, as my enjoyment and motivation for this game has dropped off in the face of the continued power creep and swings in balance, while others, as evidenced in this thread, are quite content to play as is and not concern themselves with balance issues.
RunicFIN wrote: I don't think there is a tabletop wargame in existence where all matchups possible in the entire game have a fair chance of winning all the others.
And Warhammer 40,000 certainly isn't, and never probably will be, among them. Hence I see idealism so pointless in practice in this case.
Literally every other game has a much closer gap between good and bad lists though, and most matchups have some kind of chance. No ones after perfect balance, just some kind of effort put into balancing the game.
So when is it "balanced enough?" When all-bolter Tac Marines beat all-Baneblades? Where is the magical line in the sand where we can call it "balanced enough?"
There isn't a magical line obviously, but anything better than what there is now, anything that makes it seem like they put a modicum of thought into game balance, FAQs, erratas, consistently powered Codexes would all be an improvement.
SGTPozy wrote: To be honest I think that GK are a poor match up for most armies.
Only matchup I don't particularly favor with GK is eldar and interestingly daemons and tyranids. I can't bully them with psychic as they can shut down a lot of my spells. Daemons and tyranids just fly over me making me take a lot of saves (if I don't get cleaning flame it's a tough match to win.) Eldar I just can't beat - bladestorm just ruins GK.
See, that's a subjective statement. I think the game is "Balanced Enough" as it is.
A recon company of sentinels should never be able to stand against a properly-organized anything except another recon company, whereas a heavy tank company should be strong against defenses/ground units deployed against it but utterly vulnerable to airborne units and flyers.
RunicFIN wrote: I don't think there is a tabletop wargame in existence where all matchups possible in the entire game have a fair chance of winning all the others.
And Warhammer 40,000 certainly isn't, and never probably will be, among them. Hence I see idealism so pointless in practice in this case.
Literally every other game has a much closer gap between good and bad lists though, and most matchups have some kind of chance. No ones after perfect balance, just some kind of effort put into balancing the game.
I'll come and watch the Black Ogrun boarding parties lead by Mortenebra with a single Bonejack dominate your average Haley2 tournament build any day. The gap is just as bad.
The game in question is played with multiple lists for one very specific reason - certain matchups have no chance whatsoever against some. Ask any TO, that's what the double lists are for in this case. And occasionally the whole team doesn't have the tools to beat a certain opponent in a team tournament - that's when a player is, to quote the common term, thrown under the bus.
I almost guarantee that match will be a lot closer than pitting a casual all-Terminator player against a "casual" Eldar player with WS spam.
Unit1126PLL wrote: See, that's a subjective statement. I think the game is "Balanced Enough" as it is.
A recon company of sentinels should never be able to stand against a properly-organized anything except another recon company, whereas a heavy tank company should be strong against defenses/ground units deployed against it but utterly vulnerable to airborne units and flyers.
That seems reasonable and thematic to me.
The game isn't well balanced. That's an objective statement. Whether it's balanced enough for you to enjoy the game still is where it becomes subjective.
RunicFIN wrote: I don't think there is a tabletop wargame in existence where all matchups possible in the entire game have a fair chance of winning all the others.
And Warhammer 40,000 certainly isn't, and never probably will be, among them. Hence I see idealism so pointless in practice in this case.
Literally every other game has a much closer gap between good and bad lists though, and most matchups have some kind of chance. No ones after perfect balance, just some kind of effort put into balancing the game.
I'll come and watch the Black Ogrun boarding parties lead by Mortenebra with a single Bonejack dominate your average Haley2 tournament build any day. The gap is just as bad.
The game in question is played with multiple lists for one very specific reason - certain matchups have no chance whatsoever against some. Ask any TO, that's what the double lists are for in this case. And occasionally the whole team doesn't have the tools to beat a certain opponent in a team tournament - that's when a player is, to quote the common term, thrown under the bus.
I almost guarantee that match will be a lot closer than pitting a casual all-Terminator player against a "casual" Eldar player with WS spam.
And the fact that they use a double list format is evidence that they are aware of some balance issues in the game and are trying to mitigate it. GW just ignore it and often make it worse with each release.
Unit1126PLL wrote: See, that's a subjective statement. I think the game is "Balanced Enough" as it is.
A recon company of sentinels should never be able to stand against a properly-organized anything except another recon company, whereas a heavy tank company should be strong against defenses/ground units deployed against it but utterly vulnerable to airborne units and flyers.
That seems reasonable and thematic to me.
The game isn't well balanced. That's an objective statement. Whether it's balanced enough for you to enjoy the game still is where it becomes subjective.
Which objective measure are you using for balance? What units does said measurement use, and how many units off of "balanced" is WH40k?
RunicFIN wrote: I don't think there is a tabletop wargame in existence where all matchups possible in the entire game have a fair chance of winning all the others.
And Warhammer 40,000 certainly isn't, and never probably will be, among them. Hence I see idealism so pointless in practice in this case.
Literally every other game has a much closer gap between good and bad lists though, and most matchups have some kind of chance. No ones after perfect balance, just some kind of effort put into balancing the game.
So when is it "balanced enough?" When all-bolter Tac Marines beat all-Baneblades? Where is the magical line in the sand where we can call it "balanced enough?"
When an army can be chosen trough personal preference over maximizing a list, when a army no longer contains auto include/exclude, when the army points represent their performance compared to a similar priced other army.
RunicFIN wrote: I don't think there is a tabletop wargame in existence where all matchups possible in the entire game have a fair chance of winning all the others.
And Warhammer 40,000 certainly isn't, and never probably will be, among them. Hence I see idealism so pointless in practice in this case.
Literally every other game has a much closer gap between good and bad lists though, and most matchups have some kind of chance. No ones after perfect balance, just some kind of effort put into balancing the game.
So when is it "balanced enough?" When all-bolter Tac Marines beat all-Baneblades? Where is the magical line in the sand where we can call it "balanced enough?"
When an army can be chosen trough personal preference over maximizing a list, when a army no longer contains auto include/exclude, when the army points represent their performance compared to a similar priced other army.
So then should 2000 points of sentinels, chosen out of personal preference, have a 50/50 vs 2000 points of Stormswords, chosen out of personal preference?
Should light recon companies really have a 50/50 vs superheavy tank companies?
So then should 2000 points of sentinels, chosen out of personal preference, have a 50/50 vs 2000 points of Stormswords, chosen out of personal preference?
Yes.
Should light recon companies really have a 50/50 vs superheavy tank companies?
Yes.
Gameplay is more important than fluff. If the opposite were true, marines would never ever lose.
RunicFIN wrote: I don't think there is a tabletop wargame in existence where all matchups possible in the entire game have a fair chance of winning all the others.
And Warhammer 40,000 certainly isn't, and never probably will be, among them. Hence I see idealism so pointless in practice in this case.
Literally every other game has a much closer gap between good and bad lists though, and most matchups have some kind of chance. No ones after perfect balance, just some kind of effort put into balancing the game.
So when is it "balanced enough?" When all-bolter Tac Marines beat all-Baneblades? Where is the magical line in the sand where we can call it "balanced enough?"
When an army can be chosen trough personal preference over maximizing a list, when a army no longer contains auto include/exclude, when the army points represent their performance compared to a similar priced other army.
So then should 2000 points of sentinels, chosen out of personal preference, have a 50/50 vs 2000 points of Stormswords, chosen out of personal preference?
Should light recon companies really have a 50/50 vs superheavy tank companies?
Yes, providing they have anti tank weapons. Why should they not? Sentinels would be much more nimble and hard to hit, so it's not like even fluff wise it would be an easy victory for the tanks. Also if it was balanced you'd have far far more sentinels than the tanks, it's not like we're talking 1 on 1 here... It would be like packs of Warhounds hunting bigger Titans, which is exactly what they do, just on a smaller scale.
I almost guarantee that match will be a lot closer than pitting a casual all-Terminator player against a "casual" Eldar player with WS spam.
The claim that every other game literally doesn't have equally bad matchups remains obliterated, as some in WM are even worse. Fact.
And the fact that they use a double list format is evidence that they are aware of some balance issues in the game and are trying to mitigate it. GW just ignore it and often make it worse with each release.
And ? Next to that, you have no evidence GW is ignoring the issues, even if they are doing a bad job at trying to fix them. Next to that it was stated by Azreal that balance and bad matchups are two different things.
Unit1126PLL has all valid points and is pretty much correct. Lastly, having nigh perfect balance and fair matchups with all combinations ever possible in a game is next to impossible. Period.
But keep chasing the dream. ( Or believing you won't get crushed in Warmachine with a bad list against a good one, or simply picking the wrong Warcaster against one that completely counters you. Because you will, and that's that. )
Now, I haven't played 40k since Jan of this year, so some of my information may be out of date. I've watched games, but I think everyone here can attest this isn't quite the same as playing.
Generally, when I think balance I think that every codex should have a chance against every other codex if both players are trying to win.
By trying to win I don't mean a hyper competitive environment, but I do mean not taking a severe skew or extremely fluffy list. Partially this is due to the fact I really don't like allies (indeed, it is the greatest reason I have yet to return to 40k. The other being Cryx is so much fun)
I think we can all agree this is currently not the case. Compare Necrons to CSM, or AM for example. A slanted match up is fine (I would argue Cygnar is 60:40 against Cryx, for example) but in 40k these can go 80:20 or worse, depending.
If a certain list has a slanted match up, alright. I can deal with that, but my entire army shouldn't struggle with an entire codex.
In WMH, it's hard to find a unit that doesn't work well with any caster at all. There are a few, nobody who makes that complicated a game can expect to get everything perfect, but in most factions these are a small percentage of lists. Some of them are waiting for a solo or UA to be good (Man-o-Wars need a UA, Ret got a UA that made them go from crap to great with their core infantry). But you can't make sweeping statements like "Cryx Jacks are all terrible" because a few casters can run them, or "Cygnar infantry is craptastic" because a few of their casters can let them get work done. This is true for the majority of units. Some are better then others, sure, but you won't lost by taking them...most of the time. Even drudges!
It's hard to find a way to get CSM to compete with Necrons unless the Necron player severely handicaps themselves. That's not a list issue, that's a entire codex issue.
You can argue allying helps alleviate this issue, and you'd be right. But a lot of people like one codex, and want to collect one codex. I own a bunch of armies and still don't like allying them, but some of my armies don't function well on their own at all. It feels like wasted money.
RunicFIN wrote: I don't think there is a tabletop wargame in existence where all matchups possible in the entire game have a fair chance of winning all the others.
And Warhammer 40,000 certainly isn't, and never probably will be, among them. Hence I see idealism so pointless in practice in this case.
Literally every other game has a much closer gap between good and bad lists though, and most matchups have some kind of chance. No ones after perfect balance, just some kind of effort put into balancing the game.
So when is it "balanced enough?" When all-bolter Tac Marines beat all-Baneblades? Where is the magical line in the sand where we can call it "balanced enough?"
When an army can be chosen trough personal preference over maximizing a list, when a army no longer contains auto include/exclude, when the army points represent their performance compared to a similar priced other army.
So then should 2000 points of sentinels, chosen out of personal preference, have a 50/50 vs 2000 points of Stormswords, chosen out of personal preference?
Should light recon companies really have a 50/50 vs superheavy tank companies?
A 2000 point army should be able to defeat another 2000 point army and vice versa, determining factors on who wins should be primarily based on player skill and whom the dice favors. rock paper scissor is an entirely different beast when it comes to balance...
So then should 2000 points of sentinels, chosen out of personal preference, have a 50/50 vs 2000 points of Stormswords, chosen out of personal preference?
Yes.
Should light recon companies really have a 50/50 vs superheavy tank companies?
Yes.
Gameplay is more important than fluff. If the opposite were true, marines would never ever lose.
I am unsure about that - the fluff on Marines is wildly all over the place. We could certainly have a fluff discussion about that though if you would like!
A 2000 point army should be able to defeat another 2000 point army and vice versa, determining factors on who wins should be primarily based on player skill and whom the dice favors. rock paper scissor is an entirely different beast when it comes to balance...
I would not play this game, then. If 2000 points of (insert anything here) can beat 2000 points of (insert anything here), then my immersion would be totally broken.
It'd be like if 2000 points of armored cars beat 2000 points of King Tiger tanks in Flames of War. My immersion would be totally crushed.
I would be the one complaining about 40k, then, and I think theme (and therefore fluff) should precedence over balance.
In your specific example of sentinels vs superheavy tanks, fluff precedence has been established. They even had a formation.
The Armageddon Stompa Hunters were sentinels used entirely to seek and destroy superheavy Ork vehicles. Sounds reasonable and pretty immersive if you ask me.
Unit1126PLL wrote: See, that's a subjective statement. I think the game is "Balanced Enough" as it is.
A recon company of sentinels should never be able to stand against a properly-organized anything except another recon company, whereas a heavy tank company should be strong against defenses/ground units deployed against it but utterly vulnerable to airborne units and flyers.
That seems reasonable and thematic to me.
But not the point.
Firstly, this is a game not a war simulator. If you start pulling at the thread of what should and shouldn't be feasible then you'll never stop.
Secondly, you're conflating poor decisions on the part of the player with poor balance. Because it is a game, putting all your eggs in one basket, no matter how well armed and armoured the basket is, should result in some very easy matches and some hopeless defeats. That's the risk/reward element of investing all your resources into one element.
If instead one is more conservative in one's choices, investing your resources in a wider range of options, you're better equipped to deal with whatever you may face, but subsequently run the risk of being overwhelmed by a list that specialises.
This is all well and good, this is part of the art and fun of list building.
The issue we have in 40K is that frequently there are units which represent such efficiency of flexibility, they remove this choice. Waveserpents are essentially good against almost everything, so why take something that is only good against infantry in their place? (I know WS are DTs so aren't competing for a slot as yet, but the point is still the same) Why take something for relatively fragile but with excellent anti-light armour capability when a (6th Ed) Heldrake could handle both light armour and essentially all infantry? Why bother taking Necrons as anything other than Decurion organisation?
Items that offer a tangible benefit with no drawback are a symptom of poor balance, or items which are objectively better or worse at a given role than units competing for the same slot, and 40K is riddled with both.
You guys are going down a rabbit hole because game balance is not uniquely about units. As Martel said, "many game systems break down when optimizing players start doing their thing". Most online competitive games need to track performance closely and implement both flash and scheduled balance tweaks. GW won't have the same digital statistics available to track performance, 40k doesn't produce the same volume of games to create a sample size, the game is not oriented towards the competitive scene, codexes are released as one-shot deals entirely out of sequence rather than being updated holistically, there's no standardized boards to use as a baseline, etc.
Yes, GW could do better. But you're not ever going to reach an e-sports level of competition as a tabletop game and I'd question why even bother. There is already a functioning competitive scene that's (dare I say) well-managed. You can already put up or shut up if you want to play competitively. Top players are throwing curveballs with outsider units like Lictors and Scouts. Those models still regarded as "extraneous" even when they make up 700-ish points of an 1850 list. RunicFN is right when he said most players don't get it. 99% of us are casuals, and our issues are within the casual scene. Go lurk in the tournament subforum if you want to debate this, nobody there is too worried about Decurion. To make the point even more academic where every unit becomes "competitively" viable, GW needs to change the way they publish. They would also have to change their focus, from putting out new models like Skitarii and popular new rulesets like Detachments. Do you see this happening? Hell no. Do you see players buying these? Hell yes.
Anyway, winners adapt and overcome, losers complain and accomplish nothing. You want to play in the current 40k meta? Suck it up. TO's already are changing what they want to. Example? Two-source armies aren't a GW rule. Limited rerolls, invisibility nerfs, etc. It's been customized already. You don't want to play in the current 40k meta? Well, adapt and overcome by making some friends, changing what you want to, and ensure you get the best out of your experience as possible. Dota started off as a fun custom game for Warcraft 3 that "competitive players" dissed, and ended up outliving it's parent. There's absolutely nothing wrong with innovation or doing your own thing. Maybe your "classic" 40k format ends up more popular than the vanilla ruleset. If your ego is keeping you shackled to one negative game experience after another... well, maybe stop? I personally am not going to cry all over my keyboard like some spoiled toddler because GW didn't write the rules I wanted. I will either tailor games with a buddy like my brother since we both know it's only for fun, or I simply walk away if I'm not having fun and not metaphorically throw good money after bad. Life is short and time is valuable. I am certainly not going to bash my head against a brick wall like a dumbass and then blame GW for it.
Your game experience is ultimately going to be decided by the kind of people you play with. This basic fact is not getting enough attention in this thread. /rant
I'm not a super-long time player (started with Dark Vengeance). My 2 cent is: Enforcing a strict army building structure is key to a balance game. Of course, having no boundary when you make your list can be fun too, but you don't need rules to tell you that.
I disagree with the Unbound arrival in the game. I disagree with the Less restrictive ally list. I also disagree with super heavy being include as part of the base game (however, I can see them fit somewhere in the game because I can see why people like to face big things against big things).
My solution: Strict CAD that give decent bonus if Unbound is still around (it will), and Stict ally rule (let's say: can't ally with the same faction, so no double or triple CADS shenanigan)
Bringing up Warmachine without properly addressing the context is asinine, as in the example software Runic et al. The game is designed, ground up, with the competitive context in mind. The idea of two list minimum formats with specifically designed scenarios shapes not only the game's meta but us a basis for model design. Yes, you can be absolutely stupid and build a Cygnar army around Sturgis and six Ironclads and get utterly curb stomped. However, you can also build fluffy, thematic armies and absolutely curb stomp if you don't meet your bad match up (Wold War, Machinations of Shadow, Runes of War, etc.).
Privateer Press is engaged with their audience, maintains errata, actively engages in developing scenario play, and at minimal cost to the consumer. The buy in for competitive lists is lower than 40k armies if you do it right and such lists can still compete over many years of rules updates with requiring little to no updates on the player. Our local meta has a top player who has been playing the same pairing, which cost him $250 to build, and has been winning first place in our events for over a year. With no concern that his army will be made invalidated by the next annual rules cycle. The worst case scenario is that some match ups will become worse and the lists my need tweaking.
Inversely, GW does not support tight, thought out game play. They have poor errata support, choosing to issue costly rewrites at "premium" pricing. Poor army match-ups are frequent and the entire meta is dominated by several key elements, which will always be flavor of the month unless they are so ridiculous resilient or overpowered to withstand rules iterations until finally their own rules are rewritten to make the garbage again. So not only is initial cost usually higher than any other game, upkeep and management cost is insanely higher.
Any game with winner and loser, or opposing players, will fall to the hands of those looking to optimize. It's game theory at its basest form. Actively working against that (GW) makes for a bad player experience and supports this rift that 40k experiences versus working with it (PP). I can play Warmachine nation wide (worldwide dare I say) and as long as I plan a balance pair for play, or for a specific meta, I can succeed as such for my player skill level. The same cannot be said for 40k as the rules are in such shambles requiring an obscene amount of ad hoc fixes on top of the asinine cost, that I have to be acutely aware of the special cases of each event.
So please, stop comparing the design choices of PP's game to the lack there of in GW's game.
Also, scrubs will always poison a game more than those playing to win. Go Google "Game Theory Scrub" and read the first link (on a phone, sorry for the implied laziness) to see I'm not using it as an insult, but as a defined term. Scrub mentality will kill any game, but 40k is far more prone given the companies ability to actively destroy their game.
Top players are throwing curveballs with outsider units like Lictors and Scouts. Those models still regarded as "extraneous" even when they make up 700-ish points of an 1850 list.
And they still run the dakka tyrants and cent starts. Those units worked, because basic rules were changed and stuff like invisibility was nerfed. If it was different we would have seen those units used sooner in to 7th. And it hardly helps that play outside those one per year tournaments.
Well, adapt and overcome by making some friends, changing what you want to, and ensure you get the best out of your experience as possible.
I can see all those people that bought ad lance, are using invisibility etc to suddenly drop those units just that others have good time .Totaly, what is next house ruling and bringing back units removed from codex or telling them not buy unit X, because it may not be fun for people playing army Y ?
Yoyoyo wrote: You guys are going down a rabbit hole because game balance is not uniquely about units. As Martel said, "many game systems break down when optimizing players start doing their thing". Most online competitive games need to track performance closely and implement both flash and scheduled balance tweaks. GW won't have the same digital statistics available to track performance, 40k doesn't produce the same volume of games to create a sample size, the game is not oriented towards the competitive scene, codexes are released as one-shot deals entirely out of sequence rather than being updated holistically, there's no standardized boards to use as a baseline, etc.
Yes, GW could do better. But you're not ever going to reach an e-sports level of competition as a tabletop game and I'd question why even bother. There is already a functioning competitive scene that's (dare I say) well-managed. You can already put up or shut up if you want to play competitively. Top players are throwing curveballs with outsider units like Lictors and Scouts. Those models still regarded as "extraneous" even when they make up 700-ish points of an 1850 list. RunicFN is right when he said most players don't get it. 99% of us are casuals, and our issues are within the casual scene. Go lurk in the tournament subforum if you want to debate this, nobody there is too worried about Decurion. To make the point even more academic where every unit becomes "competitively" viable, GW needs to change the way they publish. They would also have to change their focus, from putting out new models like Skitarii and popular new rulesets like Detachments. Do you see this happening? Hell no. Do you see players buying these? Hell yes.
Anyway, winners adapt and overcome, losers complain and accomplish nothing. You want to play in the current 40k meta? Suck it up. TO's already are changing what they want to. Example? Two-source armies aren't a GW rule. Limited rerolls, invisibility nerfs, etc. It's been customized already. You don't want to play in the current 40k meta? Well, adapt and overcome by making some friends, changing what you want to, and ensure you get the best out of your experience as possible. Dota started off as a fun custom game for Warcraft 3 that "competitive players" dissed, and ended up outliving it's parent. There's absolutely nothing wrong with innovation or doing your own thing. Maybe your "classic" 40k format ends up more popular than the vanilla ruleset. If your ego is keeping you shackled to one negative game experience after another... well, maybe stop? I personally am not going to cry all over my keyboard like some spoiled toddler because GW didn't write the rules I wanted. I will either tailor games with a buddy like my brother since we both know it's only for fun, or I simply walk away if I'm not having fun and not metaphorically throw good money after bad. Life is short and time is valuable. I am certainly not going to bash my head against a brick wall like a dumbass and then blame GW for it.
Your game experience is ultimately going to be decided by the kind of people you play with. This basic fact is not getting enough attention in this thread. /rant
Big words from a guy who's been playing since January.
See how you feel when you've invested hundreds of currency and dozens of hours into an army, only for an update to arbitrarily not modify, but utterly change the way your army plays, not just in a negative sense, but perhaps suddenly make it so OP that people either don't want to play you or mock you for cheese all the way through a game.
Don't get me wrong, players who chase the meta in a casual environment because they're over-invested in winning at toy soldiers deserve all the mockery one can muster, but I'm thinking more the likes of a local player who loved the new Necron book when it dropped, put together a list, had it all painted and then 6th turned his Bakery into one of the first broken lists of the new edition, and he suddenly found it much harder to get a game.
Or, see how you feel when you're in an environment when your options for gaming aren't friends and family, where you're not free to modify and adjust things at a whim. Sure, most guys I know, in a friendly environment, are going to be ok with small tweaks here or there, but equally there's a guy at my local club who won't even drop mysterious objectives, despite nobody else worrying, and has even tried to argue that our woods can't be considered as such (and therefore act as area terrain as per the data sheet in the BRB) because they're home made and not Citadel.
40K still works, essentially, in a casual environment amongst a regular social group who are free to select which items from the "menu" they do or don't want in their games. It is no coincidence that this is how Jervis Johnson clearly feels the game should be played.
The downside is it doesn't work in any other environment that gamers occupy, it isn't fit for pick up games, it isn't fit for competitive play, it just barely works in a looser social setting such as a club, where not everyone is necessarily the best of friends, but certain checks and balances can be introduced.
Certainly, what you say makes sense on a lot of levels, but when 40K represents years, or even decades, of investment of time and money for some people, the decision ceases to be purely rational, there's a substantial emotional component too. It's easy to say "if I stop having fun I'll walk away" after 3 months, it's less easy to follow through on that after 20 years, especially when it isn't so much a case of "I'm not having fun" so much as "it would only take a number of relatively small changes to make this game much better, why the feth don't they pull their finger out and do it and build a game that people are excited to play again?"
So then should 2000 points of sentinels, chosen out of personal preference, have a 50/50 vs 2000 points of Stormswords, chosen out of personal preference?
Yes.
Should light recon companies really have a 50/50 vs superheavy tank companies?
Yes.
Gameplay is more important than fluff. If the opposite were true, marines would never ever lose.
I am unsure about that - the fluff on Marines is wildly all over the place. We could certainly have a fluff discussion about that though if you would like!
A 2000 point army should be able to defeat another 2000 point army and vice versa, determining factors on who wins should be primarily based on player skill and whom the dice favors. rock paper scissor is an entirely different beast when it comes to balance...
I would not play this game, then. If 2000 points of (insert anything here) can beat 2000 points of (insert anything here), then my immersion would be totally broken.
It'd be like if 2000 points of armored cars beat 2000 points of King Tiger tanks in Flames of War. My immersion would be totally crushed.
I would be the one complaining about 40k, then, and I think theme (and therefore fluff) should precedence over balance.
Thats fine you don't want balanced games at all, you prefer games that are highly skewed in your favour so atleast be honest about it, this was your example afterall, and using your example as an example.
If 2000 points of shadowswords are dominating 2000 points of sentinels, im going to keep it simple for simplicities sake here, then the shadowswords are to cheap for what you pay for them and thus they are overpowered for their cost and that has nothing to do with immersion.
If you throw a 4000 point worth but (2000) point cost army and crushes a 2000 point cost army it has nothing to do with balance and nothing to do with immersion.
Your immersion is to utterly devastate an opponent that payed an equal amount of points for his army as you did yours.
Look at the point about Warmachine above. 40k isn't designed the same way.
As you say, "40K still works, essentially, in a casual environment amongst a regular social group who are free to select which items from the "menu" they do or don't want in their games."
What makes it so hard to read the writing on the wall when you yourself understand this?
"it would only take a number of relatively small changes to make this game much better, why the feth don't they pull their finger out and do it and build a game that people are excited to play again?"
Well said. Couldn't have said it better myself.
Yoyoyo wrote: Look at the point about Warmachine above. 40k isn't designed the same way.
As you say, "40K still works, essentially, in a casual environment amongst a regular social group who are free to select which items from the "menu" they do or don't want in their games."
What makes it so hard to read the writing on the wall when you yourself understand this?
Essentially, I have.
I haven't quit, I still keep up to date on rules and releases, I still spend most of my painting time on 40K army projects (I'm more at the painting end than gaming end of the spectrum anyways) and I still consider myself a 40K player.
That said, I've been gaming exclusively with X Wing since before Christmas and I've only really played 40K against one chap who I've known for 20 years and have such a similar approach to that I can be fairly sure of a close and challenging game for around 6 months.
That doesn't mean that my enthusiasm for the 40K is diminished so much that I wouldn't wholeheartedly and enthusiastically jump back in with both feet if things improved, I know I'm not alone in that, just as I know that I'm not alone in the fact that if the game doesn't improve I'll ultimately, and reluctantly, leave the whole thing behind and give all my hobby monies to a competitor company that's doing it right.
TheKbob wrote: Bringing up Warmachine without properly addressing the context is asinine, as in the example software Runic et al. The game is designed, ground up, with the competitive context in mind.
And yet it is always treated as a fine example of a game where every kind of army you throw together can win, when infact a competent list will get crushed against the proper counter.
And why is this so offtopic? The topic was about judging codices on a mono level in a game inwhich the time of mono codices is ancient history, and complaining that a unit is bad when someone else makes it work just fine, and in a tougher enviroment.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Yoyoyo wrote: You guys are going down a rabbit hole because game balance is not uniquely about units. As Martel said, "many game systems break down when optimizing players start doing their thing". Most online competitive games need to track performance closely and implement both flash and scheduled balance tweaks. GW won't have the same digital statistics available to track performance, 40k doesn't produce the same volume of games to create a sample size, the game is not oriented towards the competitive scene, codexes are released as one-shot deals entirely out of sequence rather than being updated holistically, there's no standardized boards to use as a baseline, etc.
Yes, GW could do better. But you're not ever going to reach an e-sports level of competition as a tabletop game and I'd question why even bother. There is already a functioning competitive scene that's (dare I say) well-managed. You can already put up or shut up if you want to play competitively. Top players are throwing curveballs with outsider units like Lictors and Scouts. Those models still regarded as "extraneous" even when they make up 700-ish points of an 1850 list. RunicFN is right when he said most players don't get it. 99% of us are casuals, and our issues are within the casual scene. Go lurk in the tournament subforum if you want to debate this, nobody there is too worried about Decurion. To make the point even more academic where every unit becomes "competitively" viable, GW needs to change the way they publish. They would also have to change their focus, from putting out new models like Skitarii and popular new rulesets like Detachments. Do you see this happening? Hell no. Do you see players buying these? Hell yes.
Anyway, winners adapt and overcome, losers complain and accomplish nothing. You want to play in the current 40k meta? Suck it up. TO's already are changing what they want to. Example? Two-source armies aren't a GW rule. Limited rerolls, invisibility nerfs, etc. It's been customized already. You don't want to play in the current 40k meta? Well, adapt and overcome by making some friends, changing what you want to, and ensure you get the best out of your experience as possible. Dota started off as a fun custom game for Warcraft 3 that "competitive players" dissed, and ended up outliving it's parent. There's absolutely nothing wrong with innovation or doing your own thing. Maybe your "classic" 40k format ends up more popular than the vanilla ruleset. If your ego is keeping you shackled to one negative game experience after another... well, maybe stop? I personally am not going to cry all over my keyboard like some spoiled toddler because GW didn't write the rules I wanted. I will either tailor games with a buddy like my brother since we both know it's only for fun, or I simply walk away if I'm not having fun and not metaphorically throw good money after bad. Life is short and time is valuable. I am certainly not going to bash my head against a brick wall like a dumbass and then blame GW for it.
Your game experience is ultimately going to be decided by the kind of people you play with. This basic fact is not getting enough attention in this thread. /rant
Couldn't have articulated that better. Suck it up. I like that. The game is what it is right now and will probably be for the long future.
Either accept it, or don't. Everything inbetween is your face, and a concrete wall as I mentioned before, so why make things hard for yourself. Why linger in the limbo. That is the most useless choice.
I do suck it up. I bring Cent star every game. Usually at least 1 knight too. Or 3 DK.
Doesn't mean the game couldn't easily be more balanced. Just by looking at what units never see play and ether making them have more appealing stats or reducing their costs or in some cases just changing their FOC.
So then should 2000 points of sentinels, chosen out of personal preference, have a 50/50 vs 2000 points of Stormswords, chosen out of personal preference?
Yes.
Should light recon companies really have a 50/50 vs superheavy tank companies?
Yes.
Gameplay is more important than fluff. If the opposite were true, marines would never ever lose.
I am unsure about that - the fluff on Marines is wildly all over the place. We could certainly have a fluff discussion about that though if you would like!
A 2000 point army should be able to defeat another 2000 point army and vice versa, determining factors on who wins should be primarily based on player skill and whom the dice favors. rock paper scissor is an entirely different beast when it comes to balance...
I would not play this game, then. If 2000 points of (insert anything here) can beat 2000 points of (insert anything here), then my immersion would be totally broken.
It'd be like if 2000 points of armored cars beat 2000 points of King Tiger tanks in Flames of War. My immersion would be totally crushed.
I would be the one complaining about 40k, then, and I think theme (and therefore fluff) should precedence over balance.
Thats fine you don't want balanced games at all, you prefer games that are highly skewed in your favour so atleast be honest about it, this was your example afterall, and using your example as an example.
If 2000 points of shadowswords are dominating 2000 points of sentinels, im going to keep it simple for simplicities sake here, then the shadowswords are to cheap for what you pay for them and thus they are overpowered for their cost and that has nothing to do with immersion.
If you throw a 4000 point worth but (2000) point cost army and crushes a 2000 point cost army it has nothing to do with balance and nothing to do with immersion.
Your immersion is to utterly devastate an opponent that payed an equal amount of points for his army as you did yours.
Actually, I am usually the sentinel player in this scenario. I have been playing tank company since 3rd, and while it's had its ups and downs, my priority has never been to laugh maniacally as my opponent cries tears over his crushed army.
Because Warmachine was brought up. And it is a better designed game, no doubt. You can have a much better chance at success if you understand the context of the rules. Where as with 40k, and the loss of actual factions and army composition rules (bringing back on topic) has exacerbated the issue and leading to the nose dive of the game.
Making factions have defined rules empowers player choice in army composition and design. The allies in Warmachine (mercs, minions) are intelligently chosen which parent factions they can work with versus the slap dash of "do whatever, I guess?" that is 40k.
Allies could work, but you would still need rigid structure to make a solid game. Since GW has chosen quite literally the opposite as a valid option, the only choice is to now balance every unit in the game with each other versus within factions (plus associated allies). It's completely within the confines of the rules to build a cherry picked army of only the best options across all factions with the only inhibitors being your opponents "feelings".
And that's obviously terrible game design.
There's nothing inherently wrong with having or not having mono-dex builds as a requirement. But factions exist in games to both have an army identify in appearance AND game play traits. GW has effectively destroyed this with sixth and seventh editions. It's one of the reasons fifth edition is still favorable in the polls on these forums when asked "what's your favorite edition?" It was the peak of that with the closest thing to overall balance for 40k with a skew towards armor/MSU (Same as Warmachine has a meta skew towards insane armor values right now, this naturally happens as games evolve).
Xenomancers wrote: I do suck it up. I bring Cent star every game. Usually at least 1 knight too. Or 3 DK.
Doesn't mean the game couldn't easily be more balanced. Just by looking at what units never see play and ether making them have more appealing stats or reducing their costs or in some cases just changing their FOC.
It's easy to balance it among friends/family with house rules and alt formats. Example of restricting FOC choices when you're limited to the Dark Vengeance box. The hard part is getting player buy-in from the uncooperative as Azreal described above. Any single one of us could write a classic unit restriction/costing list to play old-school skirmish games in 40k. The hard part is dealing with troublesome dudes who play the "it's not official GW rules policy" card.
Look at the YMDC forum, it's not hard to find people who will leverage every bullsh*t technicality out there to win. Even without that you have optimizers as Martel said. 40k's strengths are it's size and scale and that doesn't lend itself to tight design. So I think if you are not willing to suck it up and play within the messy rule set, you need to apply your own restrictions to manage the experience.
There's a huge chasm between "sheer size and scope makes it tough to balance" which is a fair comment and GW's "feth it, do what you like, we can't be arsed" approach though.
Couldn't agree more. However, with GW's incompetence to balance codices ( ah well, the newest ones are actually fairly balanced against eachother before the Necron mistake was made ) I think the situation would be even worse if you couldn't use allies to plug the holes. I am fairly confident that if Necrons were fixed a bit, and Eldar and Tau updated to the level of the other new codices and the allies matrix then removed, there might actually be something resembling balance. And yeah, the few big BRB bloopers fixed.
Anyway, I'd say the improvement would be vast.
They have already decided a game of theirs is way too broken and clunky, and decided to relaunch. GW has shown they actually have the spine to do such a thing ( ofcourse it's a way steeper cliff with 40K which is their flagship. ) We have to remember the designers have mostly been working on an engine that is what, 20 years old, and haven't probably been given permission for a complete overhaul or something resembling that. I actually wish they would give 40K the clean slate treatment, but even more I hope they would do it right. Or for the very least, better.
Yep, when I mentioned "a few small changes" a few posts back, it was that sort of thing I had in mind.
I do wonder if, because GW think they're selling to teenagers and only teenagers, there is some policy against rules with drawbacks?
I mean "gain benefit of X at the detriment of Y" is about as standard a rules paradigm as you get, but those sorts of rules are very rare in 40K, either overtly or implied.
Automatically Appended Next Post: I really hate it when you edit your posts when I'm composing mine, now mine doesn't make sense.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Ignore everything after "improvement would be vast" in Runic's last post for mine to make more sense!
The white background makes my eyes bleed and I often realize something needs to be articulated better afterwards to avoid misundertandings which are more common than I'd like.
Your post makes sense to me.
GW has stated they sell to teenagers, but I doubt there's many people employed who actually think that, aside from perhaps some customer care personnel who might not undestand anything about the game, its roots, its history, rules, and playerbase. Or perhaps the management. Somehow I have a feeling the designers and most of the people inbetween have a clue.
But that's just a guess like any. I like your new style Azreal, let's get married.
The day they fix the statline issues and remove the reliance on tables and random charts will be the day I consider coming back.
Or when weapon skill matters, I'll be waiting with cash in hand.
I still love the "glow" of 40k, that intangible thing that makes it so appealing in a juvenile, care free sense. It's just the cost of and construct of the game itself that had me sell it all off.
(and I'm glad I sold nearly all my Skaven and Bretonnia more so...)
I don't think we should have to make up rule for our gaming communities to enjoy the game. Like I posted before, in respect to the OP, it's not the codex that are the problems I think.
Keep all the codex the same as currently. But imagine the same game now with a restrictive CADS that actually worth taking and restriction on Ally. 1 ally max, can't be the same faction. Add more consequenece to playing ally that fall under Come the Apocalypse, etc.
I don't see how hard it would be to balance the game after those change. If everyone bring 1 HQ, 2 Troop, Max 3 Elite, 3 fast and 3 Heavy (can actually make it 2 if you want a more infantry-ish game, but whatever) with an ally that can give you 1 HQ, 2 troop, 1 elite and 1 heavy maximum. Enforce bonus to bringing an army from a mono-dex maybe (using only 1 chart). those are little change that wouldn't be much trouble for anyone, that would help bring on par mono-dex with actual competitive list, and normalise the type of game and spam people will do, hence making it easier for GW to compare each troop together, each elite together and each heavy together, to ensure that they are balance.
RunicFIN wrote: I like your new style Azreal, let's get married.
But...I wanted to marry Azrael.
The white background and eye bleeding is just a part of Dakka's charm. I keep a box of kleenex on hand for just such an occasion. Well, and, you know.
*Edit* And to be on topic, while I have gripes with a lot of larger themes in 40k's design, I'd be sufficiently happy with a number of small changes to points cost on units and wargear, specifically for the IG so that Sentinels and the like are more functional and what not.
As a gamer, I find I want my collection to grow so I can play a large variety of army types. And then I branch out into different factions to try the types my chosen cannot do. I went from one, maybe two lists in Warmachine to six competitive builds in Legion, two in Trolls, and owning nearly the entire faction of Cryx including almost max FA on banes.
I'd say appealing to collectors is a poor choice since gamers will buy models above and beyond simple shelf ornaments to have a multitude of viable options to tailor lists to there whim.
Azreal13 wrote: I do wonder if, because GW think they're selling to teenagers and only teenagers, there is some policy against rules with drawbacks?
Not so sure that they think they're selling to teenagers as a "primary" market, although I certainly think that's an important demographic. Frankly, I'm not sure how many teenagers can really afford to play 40k or afford 40k collections. You basically have college nerds and younger teens who have well-to-do families.
Which confirms a lot of suspicions, but at the same time, it means you shouldn't expect any kind of balance solutions coming anytime soon from GW.
A couple of things to temper that with, firstly, with all due deference to Rick and his immense contribution to 40K, he hasn't worked at GW for some time, and while he still has links (it's a small community) there's every chance he isn't privy to every single thing that goes on (but most of it probably.)
The second thing is that GW have experienced significant falls in revenue over the last 18 months, and it's this sort of thing which will precipitate change beyond anything else. While I remain skeptical that they will try and reverse the trend by improving the game and talking to their customers, there could be a difference between the was Rick is taking about and the is of GW at this moment.
Azreal13 wrote: I do wonder if, because GW think they're selling to teenagers and only teenagers, there is some policy against rules with drawbacks?
Not so sure that they think they're selling to teenagers as a "primary" market, although I certainly think that's an important demographic. Frankly, I'm not sure how many teenagers can really afford to play 40k or afford 40k collections. You basically have college nerds and younger teens who have well-to-do families.
I'm not sure of the genesis of that thought, but if you view much of GW's activity through that filter, the whole "two birthdays, one Christmas" philosophy, it makes more sense. I still don't think it's a good idea, but it makes more sense.
But it boils down to the arrogance of GW (which, in turn, I think comes from having Kirby in such control for so long, and he seems an arrogant character) where they expect us to buy what they deign to make, and they sell to teenage boys because they SAY that's who they're selling to, regardless of reality.
As far as rules with drawbacks goes, there seems to trend in all gaming to move away from that. Outside a few niche games, many series have steadily gone towards a sort of simplification or bonus stacking design rather than a trade off/role defined design. The first thing that springs to mind is the Elder Scrolls which went from the fairly detailed skill and attribute system of Morrowind to the skill only system that offered perks for each point invested. Before, you had to make some meaningful choices on your attributes to define your playstyle, but now you can just max out a bunch of things and be awesome at everything.
Gaming in general is growing in popularity, and I suspect many people enjoy games that are simple to learn and play, yet offer some sort of depth/replayability, which can still be done using a bonus only design. Trade offs require that little bit extra analysis and work to determine if its worth it for a given goal, and are that little bit harder to balance as well, so I'm not surprised many designers do away with it.
I'm personally a fan of trade offs because I enjoy defined roles and themes in all my games, but I can see how some people may be put off by it.
TheKbob wrote: As a gamer, I find I want my collection to grow so I can play a large variety of army types. And then I branch out into different factions to try the types my chosen cannot do. I went from one, maybe two lists in Warmachine to six competitive builds in Legion, two in Trolls, and owning nearly the entire faction of Cryx including almost max FA on banes.
I'd say appealing to collectors is a poor choice since gamers will buy models above and beyond simple shelf ornaments to have a multitude of viable options to tailor lists to there whim.
As a casual gamer (2-4 nights a month) and fanatical collector/hobbyist (25-31 nights a month), I would disagree. I buy almost every single new release from for 40k, and more than half the PP new releases, the odd WHFB model, everything for Infinity as a collector, but paint a fraction of those models. I play with an even smaller fraction. Even though I have 20 finished Retribution models and 40 Circle models, neither is not a cohesive army; it's just the models I think are cool (which ends up being a lot of warjacks). Most of what I buy stays brand new on the sprue (maybe a bit gets stolen here or there), because I'm only capable of painting about $300 of models a month, but spend three times that... or more. Some people ask why I buy all that stuff, and it's really pretty easy -- It's like a library... when I feel like modelling something, I can just do it. Also, when I do use up a kit (or even when I use a key part that I bit really like), I buy another to stock on my shelf so that if I want that <insert part> I'll have it within reach.
I would say you're an exception to the rule. Do you also buy thirty Bane Knights? Forty McThralls? How about eight Griffons for Ret? Or thirty Mage hunter strike force? Seven units of Runeshapers?
The same with 40k in six or more Flyrants or the Imperial Knights or elventy billion wave serpents. The collector would buy one, two of this an that. A committed gamer will buy as many as he can fit in a list and typically have multiple lists for variety sake and adaptation.
I'm sure there are spend heavy collectors. But having a purpose beyond simply a dopamine rush of spending money will drive more people to purchase. It's why this new "collectors driven" GW continues to see declining financial statements. Gamers make the money.
Another thing to keep in mind guys, those dusty Tac Marines and Terminators can be sold second-hand to new players. GW makes no margin on that transaction except for updated rules and codexes.
It's somewhat in their favor to keep the best units relatively new so they can keep producing and moving new stock.
Anyways it all gets very complicated, but the easiest solution to avoid the bullsh*t is still to play with friends and a ruleset/format that you can enjoy.
TheKbob wrote: Bringing up Warmachine without properly addressing the context is asinine, as in the example software Runic et al. The game is designed, ground up, with the competitive context in mind.
And yet it is always treated as a fine example of a game where every kind of army you throw together can win, when infact a competent list will get crushed against the proper counter.
And why is this so offtopic? The topic was about judging codices on a mono level in a game inwhich the time of mono codices is ancient history, and complaining that a unit is bad when someone else makes it work just fine, and in a tougher enviroment.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Yoyoyo wrote: You guys are going down a rabbit hole because game balance is not uniquely about units. As Martel said, "many game systems break down when optimizing players start doing their thing". Most online competitive games need to track performance closely and implement both flash and scheduled balance tweaks. GW won't have the same digital statistics available to track performance, 40k doesn't produce the same volume of games to create a sample size, the game is not oriented towards the competitive scene, codexes are released as one-shot deals entirely out of sequence rather than being updated holistically, there's no standardized boards to use as a baseline, etc.
Yes, GW could do better. But you're not ever going to reach an e-sports level of competition as a tabletop game and I'd question why even bother. There is already a functioning competitive scene that's (dare I say) well-managed. You can already put up or shut up if you want to play competitively. Top players are throwing curveballs with outsider units like Lictors and Scouts. Those models still regarded as "extraneous" even when they make up 700-ish points of an 1850 list. RunicFN is right when he said most players don't get it. 99% of us are casuals, and our issues are within the casual scene. Go lurk in the tournament subforum if you want to debate this, nobody there is too worried about Decurion. To make the point even more academic where every unit becomes "competitively" viable, GW needs to change the way they publish. They would also have to change their focus, from putting out new models like Skitarii and popular new rulesets like Detachments. Do you see this happening? Hell no. Do you see players buying these? Hell yes.
Anyway, winners adapt and overcome, losers complain and accomplish nothing. You want to play in the current 40k meta? Suck it up. TO's already are changing what they want to. Example? Two-source armies aren't a GW rule. Limited rerolls, invisibility nerfs, etc. It's been customized already. You don't want to play in the current 40k meta? Well, adapt and overcome by making some friends, changing what you want to, and ensure you get the best out of your experience as possible. Dota started off as a fun custom game for Warcraft 3 that "competitive players" dissed, and ended up outliving it's parent. There's absolutely nothing wrong with innovation or doing your own thing. Maybe your "classic" 40k format ends up more popular than the vanilla ruleset. If your ego is keeping you shackled to one negative game experience after another... well, maybe stop? I personally am not going to cry all over my keyboard like some spoiled toddler because GW didn't write the rules I wanted. I will either tailor games with a buddy like my brother since we both know it's only for fun, or I simply walk away if I'm not having fun and not metaphorically throw good money after bad. Life is short and time is valuable. I am certainly not going to bash my head against a brick wall like a dumbass and then blame GW for it.
Your game experience is ultimately going to be decided by the kind of people you play with. This basic fact is not getting enough attention in this thread. /rant
Couldn't have articulated that better. Suck it up. I like that. The game is what it is right now and will probably be for the long future.
Either accept it, or don't. Everything inbetween is your face, and a concrete wall as I mentioned before, so why make things hard for yourself. Why linger in the limbo. That is the most useless choice.
I think this "suck is up, scrub" mentality is really, really bad for the community. 40k is ever looking more like an elite club with a (decreasing) community that spends their time looking pridefully at their game (not that different than the yes-men working at GW) and sneering at the other gamers as inferior. All this will do is drive players faster away from a game that is suffering from its owners employing TSLR tactics to the sales of 40k. Look at WHFB- it used to be a huge, thriving game and is now reduced to being re-born into something entirely different (and whose future is definitely questionable).
I suppose this doesn't matter too much for those telling others to suck it up; they can just keep playing with their particular groups, but 40k as a whole isn't doing any better for it. Things have changed quite significantly since the days when 5th was around and 40k was becoming a more ubiquitous concept to peoples outside the TT gaming community. I'm personally not a fan of the hobby moving back into obscurity.
It's easy to say "suck it up scrub" if you're in the same situation that GW designers seem to be in: That is you play with a close-knit group that generally has the same members consistently and where you can add/remove rules to your liking and have a gentleman's agreement to not spam units or bring FW units without advance notice and where most of your games are long drawn out brisk affairs where you laugh and joke and take breaks to have dinner or a pint or a cup of tea.
For everybody else though, the game breaks down the minute you show up to "miniatures night" at the shop and play against someone who doesn't adhere to your house rules (maybe because they aren't aware of it) or wants to play something that you don't like. Then immediately there's a disagreement and it's likely neither person is going to have fun at the end.
That's not how a healthy game should be. It shouldn't be a game where you can only enjoy it if you play it in a specific way. The selling point of 40k for the longest time used to be that it was ubiquitous; you could go to any game shop that had a 40k community and get a pick up game against someone new. That was the original appeal of 40k compared to say historical gaming where there's dozens (if not hundreds!) of rules and homebrew game systems out there and each club might have their own preference or even use their own entire system if they've been around long enough; 40k's main selling point was that you got everything from one company and you could play the same rules and same figures in a multitude of locations without being tied to a specific gaming group.
I don't think that statement is true anymore. 40k more and more has gone back to the old "gaming club" style mentality where different groups have their own ways of playing, so it's no longer a ubiquitous set of rules that you can use anywhere.
MWHistorian wrote: "Suck it up or leave" they say as GW's finances go down and down.
This - people can argue that 40k "is what it is" all they want, but the fact of the matter is, at the end of the day, GW is bleeding income and the only way they've been able to appease shareholders is by raising prices. This is NOT a viable long-term strategy, even given a community that has a great deal of disposable income.
I don't know that a better rules set would save GW. I do, however, know that producing molds for models is very expensive, while producing rules can be very cost-efficient depending on the medium. I'd happily go a year without a new model release if it meant getting a full rules overhaul. Hell, I might even buy models from GW again instead of relying primarily on [things we can't discuss] and 3rd party minis.
MWHistorian wrote: "Suck it up or leave" they say as GW's finances go down and down.
This - people can argue that 40k "is what it is" all they want, but the fact of the matter is, at the end of the day, GW is bleeding income and the only way they've been able to appease shareholders is by raising prices. This is NOT a viable long-term strategy, even given a community that has a great deal of disposable income.
I don't know that a better rules set would save GW. I do, however, know that producing molds for models is very expensive, while producing rules can be very cost-efficient depending on the medium. I'd happily go a year without a new model release if it meant getting a full rules overhaul. Hell, I might even buy models from GW again instead of relying primarily on [things we can't discuss] and 3rd party minis.
Yeah good luck. GW isn't a game company remember? They'd never in a million years take a year to write a proper set of rules and not sell new big shiny nonsense to hordes of GWombies every week+
RunicFIN wrote: I disagree about the focus being lost on gaming, as I don't draw conclusions from a single official statement made by someone who is heavily business oriented and most likely not very well in touch with the game design department of the big company that is Games Workshop.
Thier first sentance speaks volumes, nothing about thier games or game design as part of thier profit model.
They only mention they make the best, high quality models and miniatures. several times they point that out.
They mention 'thier games' twice. In one sentance they define the true function of thier hobby centers, which are for recruitment not sales. The other sentance states the games are a 'key part', but they never state they make or design them. Nor is thier any mention on quality of the games they make.
So, I agree with Tigramans and apparently GW themselves, the focus on gaming is lost, it is a part but alas that is it.
Aside from the more questionable writing decisions of GW, you had certain casual players arguing rules "issues" like how their immobilized skimmer, sitting like a large fat rock in a farm field, somehow should receive a 4+ cover save from Jink.
That's not sloppy rules writing from GW. If you can scrape together two brain cells the solution should be obvious. It borders on embarrassing they had to FAQ it for the wider playerbase! That's why a lot of people like to play with old friends, or family, and stay away the hell away from the greater 40k community. Most rules and balance "issues" simply vanish or get taken care of promptly once you're around the right people.
The community is both the single biggest incentive and disincentive to participating in 40k. Not the ruleset or codex balance. Anyway, here's a far better epic rant than I can come up with alone. Fun for a little different take on things.
Yoyoyo wrote: Aside from the more questionable writing decisions of GW, you had certain casual players arguing rules "issues" like how their immobilized skimmer, sitting like a large fat rock in a farm field, somehow should receive a 4+ cover save from Jink.
That's not sloppy rules writing from GW.
Except that it is.
Yoyoyo wrote: If you can scrape together two brain cells the solution should be obvious.
Anyone with two brain cells should also be able to work out that if a wraithknight is engaged with some guardsmen, you can easily shoot it without ever endangering them (hence ignoring the rule prohibiting you from firing into combat).
So, are you happy for me to shoot your engaged wraithknight?
Who knows? If you're the kind of guy to counter a very basic and obvious conclusion by trying to cloud the issue with a completely unrelated counter-argument, I'd probably just avoid playing with you.
Yoyoyo wrote: Aside from the more questionable writing decisions of GW, you had certain casual players arguing rules "issues" like how their immobilized skimmer, sitting like a large fat rock in a farm field, somehow should receive a 4+ cover save from Jink.
That's not sloppy rules writing from GW. If you can scrape together two brain cells the solution should be obvious. It borders on embarrassing they had to FAQ it for the wider playerbase! That's why a lot of people like to play with old friends, or family, and stay away the hell away from the greater 40k community. Most rules and balance "issues" simply vanish or get taken care of promptly once you're around the right people.
The community is both the single biggest incentive and disincentive to participating in 40k. Not the ruleset or codex balance. Anyway, here's a far better epic rant than I can come up with alone. Fun for a little different take on things.
Except in this example, it's not that people don't understand how the rule should be played, it's people trying to exploit the shoddily written rules to their advantage. If it was written correctly in the first place, there would be no issues.
Yoyoyo wrote: Who knows? If you're the kind of guy to counter a very basic and obvious conclusion by trying to cloud the issue with a completely unrelated counter-argument, I'd probably just avoid playing with you.
The argument is in no way unrelated.
You're saying that logic should override the core rules. I'm pointing out that, if you accept that, you also have to accept the many other instances in the rules where logic is ignored.
Also, I see that you've avoided my question - probably because you know your own argument has fallen apart.
I think a major problem is that the intent of the authors is not to make balanced, competitive rulesets but rather something that will assist in marketing miniatures and selling toy soldiers.
Indeed, I would say that "lawyering" impacts everything humans do. Of course the amount that lawyering has an impact, or that people recognize it, largely depends on how ambiguous the rules of whatever thing you're talking about.
And then the goal of the organizing body has an impact too. You could imagine the organizers of major soccer/futbol events strive to create the greatest level of balance and equality as possible. With 40k, that obviously isn't the case given the constant (and increasing) rate GW puts out rules publications, the constantly-fluxing style in which they add new elements (i.e. shifting to formations, CADs, formation bonuses, no HQs, etc. etc.), and the natural benefit GW garners in keeping the game in a state of imbalance (I would argue that they would be better served by perfect imbalance, but that's a different topic).
Martel732 wrote: In my experience, gamers rules lawyer EVERY game.
It's not like they can shut off their personality. But some places are going to find poor behaviour more difficult to address than others. A store kicking out a paying customer is difficult. Kicking out an over-competitive guy, who's been aggressively slide-tackling girls in pick-up soccer at the park, is hard not to do.
Yoyoyo wrote: Aside from the more questionable writing decisions of GW, you had certain casual players arguing rules "issues" like how their immobilized skimmer, sitting like a large fat rock in a farm field, somehow should receive a 4+ cover save from Jink.
That's not sloppy rules writing from GW. If you can scrape together two brain cells the solution should be obvious. It borders on embarrassing they had to FAQ it for the wider playerbase! That's why a lot of people like to play with old friends, or family, and stay away the hell away from the greater 40k community. Most rules and balance "issues" simply vanish or get taken care of promptly once you're around the right people.
The community is both the single biggest incentive and disincentive to participating in 40k. Not the ruleset or codex balance. Anyway, here's a far better epic rant than I can come up with alone. Fun for a little different take on things.
If we start applying logic to cover saves then we might as well re-write the entire rule set.
You can't just say "just use your common sense" because so much of this game's rules don't follow common sense and you'll end up house-ruling everything until it's not the same game. It would be better if the actual game designers did that work for you and wrote the rules...which is...kind of their job.
In my experience, players who don't evaluate the rules are the poorest of players usually hiding behind the "just having fun*" barrier.
I recommend reading the Warmachine rules and some unit entries. You will find every defining term used very accurately allowing for no interpretation beyond what has been specifically written, such as within, completely within, while benefitting from, etc.
Casual play style, such as letting your little brother pass go and collect $400 dollars, should be the option, not the default as is the case with 40k. Games are built on abstractions, so application of true reality logic may not always coincide with actual intent.
*Fun means being a scrub, as defined by Sirlin. Not a new player but and actively ignorant player willingly imposing restrictions beyond the rules and enforcing others to hold to such "code of honor". If I pay $85 for rules, I expect to follow them as written, not as suggestions. Otherwise, playing make believe with man dolls is free of charge.
TheKbob wrote: In my experience, players who don't evaluate the rules are the poorest of players usually hiding behind the "just having fun*" barrier.
I recommend reading the Warmachine rules and some unit entries. You will find every defining term used very accurately allowing for no interpretation beyond what has been specifically written, such as within, completely within, while benefitting from, etc.
Casual play style, such as letting your little brother pass go and collect $400 dollars, should be the option, not the default as is the case with 40k. Games are built on abstractions, so application of true reality logic may not always coincide with actual intent.
*Fun means being a scrub, as defined by Sirlin. Not a new player but and actively ignorant player willingly imposing restrictions beyond the rules and enforcing others to hold to such "code of honor". If I pay $85 for rules, I expect to follow them as written, not as suggestions. Otherwise, playing make believe with man dolls is free of charge.
$85 for rules every two years (plus all appropriate army-specific rule purchases)
Martel732 wrote: In my experience, gamers rules lawyer EVERY game.
It's not like they can shut off their personality. But some places are going to find poor behaviour more difficult to address than others. A store kicking out a paying customer is difficult. Kicking out an over-competitive guy, who's been aggressively slide-tackling girls in pick-up soccer at the park, is hard not to do.
Rules lawyering is very different from physical assault of women in a park. And GW frequently writes rules that REQUIRE lawyering because they are ambiguous. They probably think they are being clever or something.
Martel732 wrote: In my experience, gamers rules lawyer EVERY game.
It's not like they can shut off their personality. But some places are going to find poor behaviour more difficult to address than others. A store kicking out a paying customer is difficult. Kicking out an over-competitive guy, who's been aggressively slide-tackling girls in pick-up soccer at the park, is hard not to do.
Rules lawyering is very different from physical assault of women in a park. And GW frequently writes rules that REQUIRE lawyering because they are ambiguous. They probably think they are being clever or something.
I think part of the problem is the 40k rules seem to be written from a conversation standpoint when it should be an instruction manual. The reason the rules are ambiguous is because of the language used as though it's someone talking to his mates at the pub instead of laying out the rules of the game.
RunicFIN wrote: I disagree about the focus being lost on gaming, as I don't draw conclusions from a single official statement made by someone who is heavily business oriented and most likely not very well in touch with the game design department of the big company that is Games Workshop.
Thier first sentance speaks volumes, nothing about thier games or game design as part of thier profit model.
They only mention they make the best, high quality models and miniatures. several times they point that out.
They mention 'thier games' twice. In one sentance they define the true function of thier hobby centers, which are for recruitment not sales. The other sentance states the games are a 'key part', but they never state they make or design them. Nor is thier any mention on quality of the games they make.
So, I agree with Tigramans and apparently GW themselves, the focus on gaming is lost, it is a part but alas that is it.
I said I don't believe their focus on gaming is lost completely due to official statements stating so as they are rarely the complete truth, and you present me an official statement to counter. Hmh.
Well, I still don't believe their focus on gaming is lost completely even if an official statement says so, as they are rarely the complete truth. The day they only make models and -nothing- else is the day their focus on gaming is lost.
Martel732 wrote: Rules lawyering is very different from physical assault of women in a park. And GW frequently writes rules that REQUIRE lawyering because they are ambiguous. They probably think they are being clever or something.
A slide tackle is not physical assault. It can piss people off though as despite being legal, it's an aggressive play and isn't really appropriate outside a somewhat competitive setting.
If we start applying logic to cover saves then we might as well re-write the entire rule set.
You can't just say "just use your common sense" because so much of this game's rules don't follow common sense and you'll end up house-ruling everything until it's not the same game. It would be better if the actual game designers did that work for you and wrote the rules...which is...kind of their job.
Marine 1: Best hide behind this cover brother.
Marine 2: Yes let us.
*both strip out of their power armour to hide in some shrubs"
RunicFIN wrote: The day they only make models and -nothing- else is the day their focus on gaming is lost.
Competitive tournaments with organizers and cool casual players can both make 40k work. There is a lot of enthusiasm out there and it's not hard to find.
What produces grief is being in a tryhard environment, inside local metas too small to have an organizing body, dealing with rules that open the door to lawyering, playing against opponents that relentlessly powerlist and fight tooth and nail for shady advantages, while simultaneously dealing with the fact that GW's publishing habits leave certain armies in the dust for years.
Considering the former two groups mentioned seem to deal passably well with GW's rather loosey-goosey rules and game balance, you have to ask what makes the latter group so special they can't cope. I figure it has to come down to a lack of cooperation in the social environment between players. That's why they expect a flawless ruleset and tight game balance to compensate in return. With somebody like my brother, immobilized Jink ruling? So easy. With somebody like the guy above? Well, be prepared for a very long argument.
Despite the tight balance of Warmachine, I've read about people quitting simply because they didn't like the other players involved. Too competitive and playing gotcha with newer players by referring to subtle quirks in the well-crafted rules. Certain people can apparently find a way to ruin anything. So it's not a sureshot fix to deliver a good experience either -- in the end, it all comes down to the people you're with.
Yoyoyo wrote: Competitive tournaments with organizers and cool casual players can both make 40k work. There is a lot of enthusiasm out there and it's not hard to find.
This is what usually gets lost in the noise online.
And for all the griping about Warhammer prices (which I agree are expensive and keep rising), almost every time I go to my FLGS, I see people carting out boxes with $200, $300, $400 of models and hobby supplies. They are excited about the game, about the hobby. If you just looked online, you'd think all these 40k-centric stores would be out of business and nobody played the game.
Yoyoyo wrote: Competitive tournaments with organizers and cool casual players can both make 40k work. There is a lot of enthusiasm out there and it's not hard to find.
This is what usually gets lost in the noise online.
And for all the griping about Warhammer prices (which I agree are expensive and keep rising), almost every time I go to my FLGS, I see people carting out boxes with $200, $300, $400 of models and hobby supplies. They are excited about the game, about the hobby. If you just looked online, you'd think all these 40k-centric stores would be out of business and nobody played the game.
Yeah sure the odd people still spend that much money, but GW profits are falling quite quickly, so clearly people are leaving the game.
Yoyoyo wrote: Competitive tournaments with organizers and cool casual players can both make 40k work. There is a lot of enthusiasm out there and it's not hard to find.
This is what usually gets lost in the noise online.
And for all the griping about Warhammer prices (which I agree are expensive and keep rising), almost every time I go to my FLGS, I see people carting out boxes with $200, $300, $400 of models and hobby supplies. They are excited about the game, about the hobby. If you just looked online, you'd think all these 40k-centric stores would be out of business and nobody played the game.
There are still people who find enjoyment in 40k. Why I don't know, but that's their choice. I might speak vehemently against GW and 40k but I've never said that someone who enjoyed 40k was stupid or an idiot for liking it. The fact GW's sales are slowly declining means that less people are falling into that category though.
Yoyoyo wrote: Aside from the more questionable writing decisions of GW, you had certain casual players arguing rules "issues" like how their immobilized skimmer, sitting like a large fat rock in a farm field, somehow should receive a 4+ cover save from Jink.
That's not sloppy rules writing from GW.
Except that it is.
Do things that obvious really need to be put in a rulebook? I think GW is reasonable in expecting people to use their brains, if they had to cover all such obvious nonsense, the rulebook would be twice as large.
Really people, how hard can it be to just be a reasonable nice person? When a question about the rules comes up, work it out on friendly terms, make a compromise or just assume that when it is not explicitly mentioned in the rules as being allowed, that it is not allowed. 40k rules are not nearly as bad as some here make it out to be, they are more comprehensive than 90% of rulesets I have seen. There are so many people out there playing 40k without ever running into issues, you can do it too. Just use your common sense.
If you want to complain about GW, fine, but do so about their ridiculous prices, about how some codices do poorly compared to others or something else that is actually worth complaining about. Don't complain about TFGs exploiting gaps in the rules, because the problem there is with the players, not GW. No matter how well one writes a set of rules, people are always going to find little gaps and exploits. Just stop doing that, be nice to your opponent (it is just a silly game with toy soldiers after all) and be happy GW actually bothers to fix such gaps, because most companies don't.
You'd still be wrong if the game was free. The fact that it's $85 for a rule set that includes a ton of valid loopholes and issues that can have multiple, fair interpretations is the problem.
Go read the rules to other games and see actual technical writing employed. Warhammer 40k is written poorly and game balance is entirely on the game designer, never the player unless actively asked for feedback (Wyrd open beta).
Poor players and scrubs will be in any game. Adding bad rules on top of it is only making that fact worse.
Really people, how hard can it be to just be a reasonable nice person? When a question about the rules comes up, work it out on friendly terms, make a compromise or just assume that when it is not explicitly mentioned in the rules as being allowed, that it is not allowed.
40k rules are not nearly as bad as some here make it out to be, they are more comprehensive than 90% of rulesets I have seen. There are so many people out there playing 40k without ever running into issues, you can do it too. Just use your common sense.
If you want to complain about GW, fine, but do so about their ridiculous prices, about how some codices do poorly compared to others or something else that is actually worth complaining about. Don't complain about TFGs exploiting gaps in the rules, because the problem there is with the players, not GW. No matter how well one writes a set of rules, people are always going to find little gaps and exploits. Just stop doing that, be nice to your opponent (it is just a silly game with toy soldiers after all) and be happy GW actually bothers to fix such gaps, because most companies don't.
Well, there are two camps --
One believes that a rule book should be the equivalent of the logic coding of a video game, where everything that could happen is ruled upon so that there is no ambiguity or interpretation.
Another believes that 40k is like an RPG, and that making things work the way you want it to is more important than what's in a book anyways.
I think that most real players are somewhere in between, and a more flexible than online forums would seem to indicate!
"One believes that a rule book should be the equivalent of the logic coding of a video game, where everything that could happen is ruled upon so that there is no ambiguity or interpretation"
That would make it a rule book, yes, not a suggestion book.
Iron_Captain wrote: Do things that obvious really need to be put in a rulebook?
Well, yes. They're rules. By definition, they should contain everything you need to know in how to play the game, and consequently, how to resolve any issues by not being vague or ambiguous.
I think GW is reasonable in expecting people to use their brains, if they had to cover all such obvious nonsense, the rulebook would be twice as large.
The first problem with this statement is the underhanded shot at anyone who thinks the rules need improving by implying they're not using their brains. Good work. I see you must also be a super nice person that empathises with people well.
The second problem is that it is absolutely false that the rulebook would be need be to bigger, let alone twice as big. In fact, the shortest gander at other rulesets would show you that some of the best written games do so in half the page count 40k does.
Really people, how hard can it be to just be a reasonable nice person? When a question about the rules comes up, work it out on friendly terms, make a compromise or just assume that when it is not explicitly mentioned in the rules as being allowed, that it is not allowed.
40k rules are not nearly as bad as some here make it out to be, they are more comprehensive than 90% of rulesets I have seen.
You're assuming people calling for better rules are total donkey-caves and insufferable, annoying hardcore gamers. I'm sure you couldn't be farther from the truth. Being a reasonable person and carrying on a game with the most sensible solution is not mutually exclusive from asking for and discussing a better ruleset. 40k, of all the rulesets I've played, is the largest, most complex, offers the least amount of tactical depth, and contains the most amount of unclear, vague, or conflicting rules. Hell, I think I'd rate Firestorm V1 higher than 6th/7th ed, and that's saying something.
There are so many people out there playing 40k without ever running into issues, you can do it too. Just use your common sense.
And there are plenty of other people who run into plenty of issues. What's your point?
Further, common sense may not apply if two people have differing ideas of what common sense should be. Your line of thinking strikes me very much that you only consider your rationale as the appropriate or correct way of doing things, rather than understanding that different people understand problems differently, thus why the rules should always strive to be as clear and concise as possible.
If you want to complain about GW, fine, but do so about their ridiculous prices, about how some codices do poorly compared to others or something else that is actually worth complaining about. Don't complain about TFGs exploiting gaps in the rules, because the problem there is with the players, not GW. No matter how well one writes a set of rules, people are always going to find little gaps and exploits. Just stop doing that, be nice to your opponent (it is just a silly game with toy soldiers after all) and be happy GW actually bothers to fix such gaps, because most companies don't.
And now you're telling people what to complain about while entirely misunderstanding the argument and points being made?
Go and read the arguments again. If GW bothered to write clear and concice rules, many issues would disappear. Yes, donkey-caves will continue to be donkey-caves, but the amount and severity of the potential exploits these people can abuse gets reduced, which is lessens a potential headache for everyone, and having clear rules means that even the most casual, half-drunk night of beer hammer goes smoothly with nary a sour taste from having to 4+ a rules dispute.
This is really simple stuff to understand. Only with 40k do I see this attitude that GW is fine and the players are bad, instead of the other way around.
*Edit* Then again, I'm almost positive no one is disagreeing that the rules couldn't be better. I'm also positive even the most vocal anti-GW, haterade drinking, horse of the apocalypse riding, doom covered nay-sayer still understands that enjoying a game of 40k is a two way experience with another human being and thus requires some degree of compromise, negotiation, and a sprinkle of meh to move on past whatever snag you hit. None of that means the complaints aren't valid though and resorting to insults on either side doesn't help much.
Seriously, the whole blame the players mentality is ridiculous. The simple fact is in almost any other game you don't get the level of people asking about rules, finding loopholes in rules, ambiguities etc because the rules are written well in the first place. I don't care how 'casual' your game is - a rulebook should have minimal ambiguity. Have you been to YMDC? Notice how other threads for other games on here are just called 'rules questions'? Because most games have the answers in the rules.
And it's not like the rules are cheap. I can make armies in other games for the amount the rules cost in 40k. It's inexcusable. Add to that the fact they very rarely even FAQ and Erratta stuff, it's entirely GWs fault. Stop blaming players for GWs cock ups.
I remember getting into Firestorm Armada on its release year. Rulebook was dirt cheap for a nice hardcover, full cover product. I think it was sub $25CAD, but my memory is failing me. The rules were super short and simple. The downside was that things were explained particularly well, so there was a lot of confusion, particularly with fighters/wings. But hell, considering it was one of their first rulesets ever, and given the cost, simplicity, and all-in-one nature of the ruleset, I'll forgive it for being pretty vague on many occasions.
40k on the other hand, is well over $100 for rules plus codex, and has 20+ years of development behind it.
You'd think they'd have this rules thing nailed down by now.
Do things that obvious really need to be put in a rulebook? I think GW is reasonable in expecting people to use their brains, if they had to cover all such obvious nonsense, the rulebook would be twice as large.
Once again, it's obvious that I should be able to shoot a wraithknight if it's only engaged with infantry models. Are you saying you'd be fine with that too? If the answer is 'no' then obviously you're just an idiot and not using your brain.
It's obvious that models that run should move further than ones which stop to fight. So, I take it you're happy for me to add 3d6 to my run moves? If the answer is 'no' then obviously you're just an idiot and not using your brain.
When you start applying common sense to GW rules, when do you stop?
Talys wrote: Another believes that 40k is like an RPG, and that making things work the way you want it to is more important than what's in a book anyways.
This is a lot closer to the true origins of 40k, where Warhammer was designed as a game because more miniatures could be sold in a tabletop wargame than as a unique RPG character. This hardcore e-sports style obsession with balance is something that's a lot more modern than 1980's goofiness with guitar-toting noise marines.
But yes, reasonable people can usually be flexible, and make just about everything work. And unreasonable people can break even the finest of game systems. Nothing new under the sun.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Here is an article about the early days of the company.
Talys wrote: Another believes that 40k is like an RPG, and that making things work the way you want it to is more important than what's in a book anyways.
This is a lot closer to the true origins of 40k, where Warhammer was designed as a game because more miniatures could be sold in a tabletop wargame than as a unique RPG character. This hardcore e-sports style obsession with balance is something that's a lot more modern than 1980's goofiness with guitar-toting noise marines.
But yes, reasonable people can usually be flexible, and make just about everything work. And unreasonable people can break even the finest of game systems. Nothing new under the sun.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Here is an article about the early days of the company.
A lot of us were still playing during the early days of the company. They have moved far beyond what the original game is, it practically no longer applies.
Ever since 3rd edition, you could hear people getting...verbal about the state of the game. You could probably search far back enough in Dakka forum history and see that these threads existed before the e-sport thing going on right now.
40k is not an RPG, and hasn't been for quite some time. Notice the lack of a moderator mentioned anywhere in the rulebook.
Why don't you try arguing the point presented? He's right, it is common sense that you should be able to shoot at a wraithlord while it's in melee. It's a huge model that towers over everything else, why shouldn't I be able to shoot it?
Why should my Alpha Legion CSM have to challenge enemies? It doesn't make sense to me.
Reasonable doesn't equal flexible. Often it means quite the opposite. My co-workers are some of the most reasonable people on the planet, but I would never call them flexible. Scientists rarely are in my experience.
Yoyoyo wrote: Aside from the more questionable writing decisions of GW, you had certain casual players arguing rules "issues" like how their immobilized skimmer, sitting like a large fat rock in a farm field, somehow should receive a 4+ cover save from Jink.
That's not sloppy rules writing from GW.
Except that it is.
Do things that obvious really need to be put in a rulebook? I think GW is reasonable in expecting people to use their brains, if they had to cover all such obvious nonsense, the rulebook would be twice as large.
Really people, how hard can it be to just be a reasonable nice person? When a question about the rules comes up, work it out on friendly terms, make a compromise or just assume that when it is not explicitly mentioned in the rules as being allowed, that it is not allowed.
40k rules are not nearly as bad as some here make it out to be, they are more comprehensive than 90% of rulesets I have seen. There are so many people out there playing 40k without ever running into issues, you can do it too. Just use your common sense.
If you want to complain about GW, fine, but do so about their ridiculous prices, about how some codices do poorly compared to others or something else that is actually worth complaining about. Don't complain about TFGs exploiting gaps in the rules, because the problem there is with the players, not GW. No matter how well one writes a set of rules, people are always going to find little gaps and exploits. Just stop doing that, be nice to your opponent (it is just a silly game with toy soldiers after all) and be happy GW actually bothers to fix such gaps, because most companies don't.
I wonder why WMH doesn't have nearly as many rules lawyers despite being more competitive and having a far higher % of "TFG" players. Most likely because there aren't holes in the rules big enough to drive a truck through. It is not the players' fault that GW can't be bothered to playtest their rules and change a few words here or add an extra sentence there to remove the ambiguity. For example with grav guns, just add a sentence stating "jink saves can still be taken against grav weapons". For the eldar serpent shield, a diagram of the serpent showing the firing arc in the codex would prevent tournaments and players ruling it 15 different ways. How long would that take to do in photoshop? 5-10 minutes? Is that really too much to ask when I'm spending $50 on a codex that will be useless in 2 years? All of these smaller companies with much lower budgets and much cheaper rulebooks manage to playtest their rules and remove most of the ambiguity or fix it in an FAQ almost immediately. When PP released Bradigus, he was borderline broken and made for some very un fun games. What did they do? Released an errata shortly after that fixed the one aspect that made him broken. The wave serpent has been broken for 2 years. What did GW do? Told the players that if something was overpowered, they should just not use that model for 2-4 years until a new codex is released or forge the narrative harder. I'm not sure whether I find it humorous or sad that people scramble to defend GW for things like that.
A lot of us were still playing during the early days of the company. They have moved far beyond what the original game is, it practically no longer applies.
Ever since 3rd edition, you could hear people getting...verbal about the state of the game. You could probably search far back enough in Dakka forum history and see that these threads existed before the e-sport thing going on right now.
40k is not an RPG, and hasn't been for quite some time. Notice the lack of a moderator mentioned anywhere in the rulebook.
Why don't you try arguing the point presented? He's right, it is common sense that you should be able to shoot at a wraithlord while it's in melee. It's a huge model that towers over everything else, why shouldn't I be able to shoot it? Why should my Alpha Legion CSM have to challenge enemies? It doesn't make sense to me. Reasonable doesn't equal flexible. Often it means quite the opposite. My co-workers are some of the most reasonable people on the planet, but I would never call them flexible. Scientists rarely are in my experience.
There was no GM in Rogue Trader, either, which was practically a recipe book for an RPG. 80's style goofiness with guitar-toting noise marines is a perfect way to describe it. It's a goofy game that has weird rules that often don't make sense, but I still find that it's as fun as it was in RT, when army lists were made up by gaming groups.
Personally, the amount of time I spend on 40k has waxed and waned over the years, but I have always loved the fluff, models, and at least in some aspects, the game. I love the 2-4 40k game nights I have a month (with friends). I wouldn't trade it for anything.
There was no GM in Rogue Trader, either, which was practically a recipe book for an RPG.
Page 6 of the Rogue Trader rulebook
"To fight a Warhammer 40,000 game you will need an extra person called the gamemaster, usually referred to simply as the GM. He will act as the umpire or referee, and it is his task to enforce the rules of the game; interpreting them where necessary. The GM should make sure that the players have sufficient dice, pencils, paper, and any other items needed during play"
A lot of us were still playing during the early days of the company. They have moved far beyond what the original game is, it practically no longer applies.
Ever since 3rd edition, you could hear people getting...verbal about the state of the game. You could probably search far back enough in Dakka forum history and see that these threads existed before the e-sport thing going on right now.
40k is not an RPG, and hasn't been for quite some time. Notice the lack of a moderator mentioned anywhere in the rulebook.
Why don't you try arguing the point presented? He's right, it is common sense that you should be able to shoot at a wraithlord while it's in melee. It's a huge model that towers over everything else, why shouldn't I be able to shoot it?
Why should my Alpha Legion CSM have to challenge enemies? It doesn't make sense to me.
Reasonable doesn't equal flexible. Often it means quite the opposite. My co-workers are some of the most reasonable people on the planet, but I would never call them flexible. Scientists rarely are in my experience.
There was no GM in Rogue Trader, either, which was practically a recipe book for an RPG. 80's style goofiness with guitar-toting noise marines is a perfect way to describe it. It's a goofy game that has weird rules that often don't make sense, but I still find that it's as fun as it was in RT, when army lists were made up by gaming groups.
Personally, the amount of time I spend on 40k has waxed and waned over the years, but I have always loved the fluff, models, and at least in some aspects, the game. I love the 2-4 40k game nights I have a month (with friends). I wouldn't trade it for anything.
There was indeed a GM in Rogue Trader. Are you sure you aren't thinking of Necromunda or one of the specialist games?
It's great you enjoy the games, and they used to be goofy, but that isn't really the point at hand. I still play GorkaMorka and Necromunda, though I have been out of 40k this year despite owning a massive collection of minis. I find WMH to be a lot more fun if I want a game, since 40k always breaks down into a rules dispute at some point. These are the same people I play all of my games with, including Necromunda, so I wouldn't call them unreasonable (specialist games require a lot of houserules).
Someone claimed the rules being loose is fine, because common sense should lead reasonable people to find what the rules should be.
Counter examples were brought up.
They were not addressed.
Another point I forgot to mention about those companies with less revenue, a lower budget to pay rules authors and (MUCH) cheaper rulebooks, they're usually on their first or second edition and <10 years of writing rules. It boggles the mind that GW can still be putting out rules with this many contradictions and holes in them after nearly 30 years, 7 editions, by far the largest budget and revenue and the highest cost. It's such a difficult feat that only the great, infallible GW could manage to pull it off. If anything, the GW rules have gotten progressively worse despite getting more money thrown at their production and their price tag increasing at many times the rate of inflation.
Like the whole deepstrike assault with FMC has gotten so bafflingly bad, I feel bad for people with daemonkin who just encounter the two turns before charge.
There was no GM in Rogue Trader, either, which was practically a recipe book for an RPG.
Page 6 of the Rogue Trader rulebook
"To fight a Warhammer 40,000 game you will need an extra person called the gamemaster, usually referred to simply as the GM. He will act as the umpire or referee, and it is his task to enforce the rules of the game; interpreting them where necessary. The GM should make sure that the players have sufficient dice, pencils, paper, and any other items needed during play"
Sorry, I just couldn't help it
All of these issues with the rules just come back to the cost the game operates under these days. With high cost comes high expectations. GW seems to meets these expectations at times with its models, which very often do a good job of really putting the plastic molding system to its maximum potential. However, GW seems to think its rules are just as good as its models, and this is where their biggest mistake lies.
We can all probably agree that GW puts some serious investment in their miniature production capabilities, and in the artists that design their models. I do not think the same can be said for the rules. They have been continually recycled, often cobbled together with not much more than "this combination should probably work well." Going back to Jervis Johnson's comments about the design of the Imperial Knights very clearly shows this. This system of non-professional rule design would be fine ifGW charged what their re-harshed, re-iterated rules were worth. But they don't. You pay for the art, yes, and you pay for the design of the books. But the rules have barely any investment in resources, and yet people are charged huge amounts of money for them. Look at Codex: Militarum Tempestus, a codex that is entirely inferior to its core book, sold a month before the release of C:AM just to draw in customers that are either compulsive buyers or not knowledgable about the army book system for 40k. And somehow the Fantasy Flight Dark Heresy books, huge tombs with vast amounts of rules, fluff and art are priced about the same or less than the individual 40k army books? Are you joking GW?
The rules are pimped out as a revenue generator for the game, and it really frustrates people. It is generating significant complaints because for all you pay for the rules in the books, you don't get much in value. But don't worry! The rules will soon be invalid and you can buy the next set, and then *maybe* some of the issues will be addressed! Not all of them though, we gotta keep you clamoring for the next version. WH40k 10th edition, here we come!
I just had a terrible thought - what if the total absence of regular, and meaningful, FAQs and Errata in recent years is down to the fact they would undermine the ability to regurgitate the various books at an increased rate?
That would make all those people who (jokingly) said GW would start charging for FAQs bang on...
Except that "people leaving the game" isn't the reason for GWs net profits going downwards as there are now more players of 40k than there ever have been. The factual, impactful reasons have been analyzed and listed by people who actually have a clue ( instead of your armchair economics ) in vaurious articles, of which none are "people leaving the game." Talk about talking out of your arse huh?
I would list the reasons of which there are 4 major ones, none having nothing to do with players, but thats offtopic and someone would be eager to disagree with facts no doubt because hey, its fun being wrong.
RunicFIN wrote: Except that "people leaving the game" isn't the reason for GWs net profits goikg downwards as there are now more players of 40k than there ever have been. The factual, impactful reasons have been analyzed and listed by people who actually have a clue ( instead of your armchair economics ) in vaurious articles, of which none are "people leaving the game." Talk about talking out of your arse huh?
I would list the reasons of which there are 4 major ones, none having nothing to do with players, but thats offtopic and someone would be eager to disagree with facts no doubt because hey, its fun being wrong.
I'm not trying to be argumentative, but what data do you have that says that there are more 40k players now than there have ever been? I can only point to anecdotal evidence about declines I have witnessed, so I am curious what your information is that says it is the reverse.
RunicFIN wrote: Except that "people leaving the game" isn't the reason for GWs net profits goikg downwards as there are now more players of 40k than there ever have been. The factual, impactful reasons have been analyzed and listed by people who actually have a clue ( instead of your armchair economics ) in vaurious articles, of which none are "people leaving the game." Talk about talking out of your arse huh?
I would list the reasons of which there are 4 major ones, none having nothing to do with players, but thats offtopic and someone would be eager to disagree with facts no doubt because hey, its fun being wrong.
Forgive me, your track record in economics threads is.. dubious? at best.
RunicFIN wrote: Except that "people leaving the game" isn't the reason for GWs net profits goikg downwards as there are now more players of 40k than there ever have been. The factual, impactful reasons have been analyzed and listed by people who actually have a clue ( instead of your armchair economics ) in vaurious articles, of which none are "people leaving the game." Talk about talking out of your arse huh?
I would list the reasons of which there are 4 major ones, none having nothing to do with players, but thats offtopic and someone would be eager to disagree with facts no doubt because hey, its fun being wrong.
We have hard numbers showing that people are leaving. At least four annual reports show declining sales during a period of the highest volume of highest priced products to date rolling out.
In fact, "more players of 40k than there ever have been" would fly in the face of current data, so you'd have to support your argument versus the opposite.
For all your supposed intellect, its amazing how poorly you recognize trolling. And to answer your question beforehand, yes, from the start till the end, and basically having to draw you a map is disappointing.
Also, decreased sales doesnt translate to people leaving a game. If someone cant even grasp this then talking about the subject is quite moot. But refer to my post before and use the search if you want to know the actual reasons of which 2 / 4 major ones actually have nothing to do with GW, and of which only one has to do with players, and even that one is linked to global economy instead of players going "I quit!"- sorry, just a a fact. But thats the last of this subtopic from me.
I'm sure we'd all love for you to bless us with your superior intellect and explain to us drooling morons the reasons why GW is failing and how falling sales actually means rising sales.
Had to say I really appreciate and value you people who suggested being reasonable. Unfortunately you always have the neckbeard asperger type here and there, who are just unable to organize their 40K gaming into a functioning entirety, and for some reason just cant deal with pretty much anything.
Meanwhile the rest of us have fun games, have no match destroying issues with other players or the rules, be it in groups OR tournaments even if they are abroad with strangers.
Go figure.
I say let them work it out on their own, their reaction to any suggestions is no.jpeg - because ofcourse it is.
Maybe I will design a perfectly balanced competitive game, where two male players race to see who can be the first to pound their nuts flat with a hammer. You can choose from one of three factions. The ruleset will be very clear and every faction has been painstakingly balanced in terms of mass, striking area and leverage so that your nut-pounding tool leaves no player at a disadvantage. May the best man win! I'm sure a few of you in this thread would probably love it.
Blacksails wrote: I'm sure we'd all love for you to bless us with your superior intellect and explain to us drooling morons the reasons why GW is failing and how falling sales actually means rising sales.
Interesting, just said that reduced sales dont translate to people leaving a game, not what you describe.
Yoyoyo wrote: Maybe I will design a perfectly balanced competitive game, where two male players race to see who can be the first to pound their nuts flat with a hammer. You can choose from one of three factions. The ruleset will be very clear and every faction has been painstakingly balanced in terms of mass, striking area and leverage so that your nut-pounding tool leaves no player at a disadvantage. May the best man win! I'm sure a few of you in this thread would probably love it.
So this is what we've gotten to, just being derogatory to other commenters in the thread. I'm thinking this topic needs to die.
Blacksails wrote: I'm sure we'd all love for you to bless us with your superior intellect and explain to us drooling morons the reasons why GW is failing and how falling sales actually means rising sales.
Interesting, just said that reduced sales dont translate to people leaving a game, not what you describe.
I might have responded to this if you hadn't posted this...
RunicFIN wrote:Had to say I really appreciate and value you people who suggested being reasonable. Unfortunately you always have the neckbeard asperger type here and there, who are just unable to organize their 40K gaming into a functioning entirety, and for some reason just cant deal with pretty much anything.
Meanwhile the rest of us have fun games, have no match destroying issues with other players or the rules, be it in groups OR tournaments even if they are abroad with strangers.
Go figure.
I say let them work it out on their own, their reaction to any suggestions is no.jpeg - because ofcourse it is.
Which shows you clearly have zero motivation to have any sort of rational discussion. It shows you haven't read what people have written or chosen to deliberately misinterpret and insult instead. This seems to be par for the course for you though, so I'm not exactly surprised.
I am genuinely curious though if you do have any source for your claim 40k has the most players it ever has.
Yoyoyo wrote: Maybe I will design a perfectly balanced competitive game, where two male players race to see who can be the first to pound their nuts flat with a hammer. You can choose from one of three factions. The ruleset will be very clear and every faction has been painstakingly balanced in terms of mass, striking area and leverage so that your nut-pounding tool leaves no player at a disadvantage. May the best man win! I'm sure a few of you in this thread would probably love it.
So this is what we've gotten to, just being derogatory to other commenters in the thread. I'm thinking this topic needs to die.
The point is that there's a lot more to a fun experience than competitive balance
Some people eat competitively. I'll take a pass though.
RunicFIN wrote: ...Most of the complaining happens in a competitive context ( you don't need a competitive list for casual games, they are casual games, and that's it. )...
....Either complain in a casual context where there is no need for competitiveness, or talk in the competitive context ....
Ok so I haven't read this thread and it's probably been beaten to death, but I just can't help myself but this is such a silly statement. This dichotomy is false, it doesn't exist, there isn't this split of casual plebs who don't need rules because they just go "pew pew pew" at each other vs competitive players who run out and throw money at GW to buy whatever is most powerful that week.
The reality is most people fall somewhere in the middle. They go in to the game with some competitive nature of wanting to win and do well, but they aren't so competitive that it's the only thing they care about.
THAT'S WHY PEOPLE COMPLAIN. They fall neither in to the group of people who are so casual they don't give a gak about balance nor the group of people who is so competitive they might as well be playing with counters instead of miniatures because they don't care about the fluffy aspects at all.
The point is that there's a lot more to a fun experience than competitive balance
Some people eat competitively. I'll take a pass though.
Right, but that was never a point people were contending. The general idea was that 40k could stand to be improved for all player types by even a small amount of balance in point cost shifting and tweaking of some abilities.
RunicFIN wrote:For all your supposed intellect, its amazing how poorly you recognize trolling.
RunicFIN wrote:Unfortunately you always have the neckbeard asperger type here and there, who are just unable to organize their 40K gaming into a functioning entirety, and for some reason just cant deal with pretty much anything.
So you at least admit to trolling and are reduced to ad hominem? We're on the same page, yes?
I'm tired of this, who wants to go play "Ball Breaker: Smash Nutz Edition"?
Yoyoyo wrote: Maybe I will design a perfectly balanced competitive game, where two male players race to see who can be the first to pound their nuts flat with a hammer. You can choose from one of three factions. The ruleset will be very clear and every faction has been painstakingly balanced in terms of mass, striking area and leverage so that your nut-pounding tool leaves no player at a disadvantage. May the best man win! I'm sure a few of you in this thread would probably love it.
So this is what we've gotten to, just being derogatory to other commenters in the thread. I'm thinking this topic needs to die.
The point is that there's a lot more to a fun experience than competitive balance .
That's really quite high on the list of necessary things in a game where the whole object is to test one's various mental faculties against an opponent in order to determine a winner though.
I think there would be quite the scandal if someone gave Novak Djokovic a smaller racket to play with, but not his opponent, or the FIA declared that Ferrari could run a bigger engine than all the other cars.
Any activity where parties compete to determine a winner ceases to be fun when one of those parties has an unfair and unwarranted advantage.
Blacksails wrote: Right, but that was never a point people were contending. The general idea was that 40k could stand to be improved for all player types by even a small amount of balance in point cost shifting and tweaking of some abilities.
That's exactly why players from me and my bro, to national GT organizers, apply house rules to improve their gaming experience. That's pretty much proof EVERYONE agrees with that.
You can certainly state that GW could do better. No problem,. I'm just surprised by all the people who seem to be offended by the idea of taking any responsibility for their gaming experience by applying an ounce of cooperation to smooth out balance and rules issues.
Which shows you clearly have zero motivation to have any sort of rational discussion. It shows you haven't read what people have written or chosen to deliberately misinterpret
A note many people share and that is easily perceivable in the community and mentioning it how it basically is shows none of the above, next to that Ive read each and every post as evidenced by replies to some of them and discussing atleast 3 offtopic subjects included in this thread already. What do you wish to attempt next, or could I perhaps interst you in the topic of codices in a mono enviroment or the interesting disparity of some players winning tournament matches with say a unit someone else deems worthless even in their friendly/casual games?
RunicFIN wrote: I disagree about the focus being lost on gaming, as I don't draw conclusions from a single official statement made by someone who is heavily business oriented and most likely not very well in touch with the game design department of the big company that is Games Workshop.
Thier first sentance speaks volumes, nothing about thier games or game design as part of thier profit model.
They only mention they make the best, high quality models and miniatures. several times they point that out.
They mention 'thier games' twice. In one sentance they define the true function of thier hobby centers, which are for recruitment not sales. The other sentance states the games are a 'key part', but they never state they make or design them. Nor is thier any mention on quality of the games they make.
So, I agree with Tigramans and apparently GW themselves, the focus on gaming is lost, it is a part but alas that is it.
I said I don't believe their focus on gaming is lost completely due to official statements stating so as they are rarely the complete truth, and you present me an official statement to counter. Hmh.
Well, I still don't believe their focus on gaming is lost completely even if an official statement says so, as they are rarely the complete truth. The day they only make models and -nothing- else is the day their focus on gaming is lost.
Listen I still play but I find the rules too hard to manage too many holes. The only reason I still play is I hold out hope I can enjoy a game I invested a lot of time on.
A company that has the word game in it should develop a rules set with equal quality as the models they make. That sir is a fact. If they did make a better game than the current set I guarantee players will flock back to them in droves. Another fact.
Yoyoyo wrote: That's exactly why players from me and my bro, to national GT organizers, apply house rules to improve their gaming experience. That's pretty much proof EVERYONE agrees with that.
You can certainly state that GW could do better. No problem,. I'm just surprised by all the people who seem to be offended by the idea of taking any responsibility for their gaming experience by applying an ounce of cooperation to smooth out balance and rules issues.
So, you're happy with investing $130+ in rules that require you to fix them further, when even the most expensive competitor offers the entirety of their games rules for $60 for the lifetime of the edition for every faction?
I mean, sure, go nuts. At least Ball Breakers™ rule are cheaper.
RunicFIN wrote:For all your supposed intellect, its amazing how poorly you recognize trolling.
RunicFIN wrote:Unfortunately you always have the neckbeard asperger type here and there, who are just unable to organize their 40K gaming into a functioning entirety, and for some reason just cant deal with pretty much anything.
So you at least admit to trolling and are reduced to ad hominem? We're on the same page, yes?
That only had to do with me getting Blacksails to believe I can magically see into the future months ago so he would continually use my supposed precognitions failure as leverage while I giggle in my chair letting him have his fun with his "ace in the sleeve" that was never there.
That only had to do with me getting Blacksails to believe I can magically see into the future months ago so he would continually use my supposed precognitions failure as leverage while I giggle in my chair letting him have his fun with his "ace in the sleeve" that was never there.
That only had to do with me getting Blacksails to believe I can magically see into the future months ago so he would continually use my supposed precognitions failure as leverage while I giggle in my chair letting him have his fun with his "ace in the sleeve" that was never there.
So actively trolling, yes?
Actually I haven't responded to that very subject after I introduced it, so no. And only that one subject at that.
If you're talking about how the clearly difficult personalities seem to coincidentally be the ones having the most issues with the rules and other players when gaming, I'll just go ahead and state that it's a recurring phenomenon that I and vaurious other users ( and people I know ) have noted, in this very thread also. Stating it bluntly like it is, nothing more. You can infact, play Warhammer 40,000 without issues on a practical level even with it's flaws. It's being done daily.
Well, Space Marines aren't the most competitive thing mono, but allied we have seen them in the absolute top tables even in the most recent tournaments. Same goes for Grey Knights.
But "a lot of these armies" is a bit open. Yeah, I haven't seen Sisters in the top tables even allied ( has someone btw? )
Actually I haven't responded to that very subject after I introduced it, so no. And only that one subject at that.
If you're talking about how the clearly difficult personalities seem to coincidentally be the ones having the most issues with the rules and other players when gaming, I'll just go ahead and state that it's a recurring phenomenon that I and vaurious other users ( and people I know ) have noted, in this very thread also. Stating it bluntly like it is, nothing more.
Well, perhaps I can give a brief aid, likely where it's not wanted:
Try listening to those with the facts and reason behind them. Failing to do so creates the "reoccurring phenomenon" I imagine that you mention.
There was no GM in Rogue Trader, either, which was practically a recipe book for an RPG.
Page 6 of the Rogue Trader rulebook
"To fight a Warhammer 40,000 game you will need an extra person called the gamemaster, usually referred to simply as the GM. He will act as the umpire or referee, and it is his task to enforce the rules of the game; interpreting them where necessary. The GM should make sure that the players have sufficient dice, pencils, paper, and any other items needed during play"
Wow, you're right. I played RT for all the years it was out without a GM (was in college then). We had army lists printed on dot matrix printer that everyone had to pay $10 for hahahaha.
Azreal13 wrote: Any activity where parties compete to determine a winner ceases to be fun when one of those parties has an unfair and unwarranted advantage.
It depends on how outcome-oriented you are. I've played ping-pong near the beach in a gusting wind, it's hardly fair. But it was still fun.
40k doesn't have the pedigree, reach, base, resources, or impartial oversight of a sport like tennis or racing. The only thing that comes close in a board game is chess, and that has 1400+ years over 40k. WMH might have a better ruleset but again, that isn't the main draw of 40k for every player.
I think you need to have some perspective both on what GW will actually take on responsibility for, and how many of your expectations of will actually be fulfilled in a casual setting. GW is not an oversight body and shows no desire to become one. Meanwhile, Frontline Gaming has 20-ish pages of rules erratas but they're too small an organization to set up bush leagues for teenagers and referee at your local.
So in this environment, what can players do? Well, take on more responsibility for themselves. Participating in car racing or tennis at high levels costs a LOT more than 40k does. I don't see this happening so you have to look towards solutions that are pragmatic.
Well, perhaps I can give a brief aid, likely where it's not wanted:
Try listening to those with the facts and reason behind them. Failing to do so creates the "reoccurring phenomenon" I imagine that you mention.
I'm not sure what you mean. It's as if you're saying that the clearly difficult personalities who have issues with other players and the game on a practical level, who can't make their Lictors win games, or people with complaints in general "have the facts."
But seeing as you appear a reasonable person, I expect you ment something else entirely.
If you're referring to the economics bit, I did just say one should use the search function or google to find out the facts. Of which one is that reduced sales doesn't translate into people leaving a game ( not in the sense that it's more than a fraction of a reason anyway, certainly some money has been lost to that, but not 13 million, sorry. ) In any case, the sales of anything dropping doesn't translate to people abandoning said product being the primary reason. In GW's case it's one of the smallest reasons along with used miniatures market increasing in size with every purchased miniature to name another.
TheKbob wrote: So, you're happy with investing $130+ in rules that require you to fix them further, when even the most expensive competitor offers the entirety of their games rules for $60 for the lifetime of the edition for every faction?
Nah Kbob. I'm happy if I'm having fun. I am not that complicated. I try and squeeze the most value out of everything I do, rather than try and find reasons to make myself unhappy. I've heard it said in the context of dating, but today's expectations are usually tomorrow's resentments. I put having fun first -- balance, winning, rules, they are really all subservient in the goal of me enjoying my free time. So I don't stress the details.
Thanks for the good idea on naming my new game though
RunicFIN wrote: Except that "people leaving the game" isn't the reason for GWs net profits going downwards as there are now more players of 40k than there ever have been. The factual, impactful reasons have been analyzed and listed by people who actually have a clue ( instead of your armchair economics ) in vaurious articles, of which none are "people leaving the game." Talk about talking out of your arse huh?
I would list the reasons of which there are 4 major ones, none having nothing to do with players, but thats offtopic and someone would be eager to disagree with facts no doubt because hey, its fun being wrong.
Please give me just one example of hard data showing that 40k has more players now than ever before. As usual, you come into a thread and make wild claims that fly in the face of all objective data available on the subject. Then, when pressed for a source, you resort to straw man arguments, ad hominem attacks, dance around the question, change the subject, and finally tell everyone to "go look it up". I'm sorry but when you make wild claims like this, it isn't our responsibility to go hunt down your data. Either post the source or admit you're wrong. BTW, what happened when you said GW would post a revenue and/or profit increase on their next financial report, you had it on "good authority" and you would PM someone the proof? Oh that's right, you did the same thing you're doing in this thread. The PM never came and when the financial report came out it directly contradicted your predictions.
So, RunicFin says "more people are playing 40k now than ever" without trying to back that up and admits to trolling.
That's not conducive to a rational argument.
Just because someone criticizes something, that doesn't make them bitter, zealous, irrational or even unpleasant. It means they think something is wrong.
For example: Someone says, GW might want to change their business strategy because they're losing sales as evidenced by past financial reports. That's not an opinion, it's a fact. RunicFin then says "That's not true" and proceeds to offer nothing but insults as a response.
Edit: that person RunicFin was supposed to message with his top secret info showing how GW is actually doing good, was to my twin brother...whom he never messaged anything.
TheKbob wrote: So, you're happy with investing $130+ in rules that require you to fix them further, when even the most expensive competitor offers the entirety of their games rules for $60 for the lifetime of the edition for every faction?
Indeed Kbob, I am happy, or perhaps satisfied. I sure as hell am happy playing 40K. GW's stance on things currently is that they give us a sandbox to play in, and we players decide the game we want to play, be it with friends or in tournaments. As we all know, they aren't even aiming at making the game function in tournaments as is. If someone wants a game that is designed from the ground up to be fit for tournaments, this game isn't for you! It has always been so, geez, try to realize that already and move on if you can't deal with the fact it requires cooperation with others to make it more sensible. Nothing is achieved by lingering with something you can't get over, not in general, not in 40K.
It has been like this for quite some time now, and I see no problem with that even though I am a somewhat competitive player and like to play in tournaments. I also like friendly games and am more than willing to adjust my list to the powerlevel of a person who has his old collection and is lacking gravcents and drop pods. During my 13 years of Warhammer 40,000 I have ran into 0 issues with the 100+ people I have played with from my own country and vaurious other countries in tournaments abroad ( and that's a really, really big guess on the minimum amount of people since a single tournament often introduces 10 more minimum ) aside from the occasional finding out how a rule works or getting a TO to decide incase the answer cannot be found. And quite frankly those issues are so small that they don't affect my enjoyment in any way.
As a sidenote, the rules cost me 86$, not 130$ +
The game not being tailored to suit the needs of people who don't have friends, can't make any, can't join a group for god knows what reason and on a general level can't interact with strangers in a way that doesn't cause a hostile enviroment during a match is nothing odd. Most people are just fine, and when you do meet that rotten apple abusing the game, either bite your teeth, try to find a way to make him stop, don't play him, or my personal favorite, become better than him and crush him with his own tricks. Alternatively if you can't do any of those, quit the game. If you don't want to quit the game nor try any of the options mentioned above and instead choose to cause yourself suffering and complain about these very things on the internet without doing anything of the above, then all I can do is wonder what is wrong with you.
Toofast wrote: Please give me just one example of hard data showing that 40k has more players now than ever before.
And what might your objective data of player amounts being reduced be? Reduced sales? Then, what might your evidence of Billy not buying as many miniatures in 2015 as he did in 2013 translating to him quitting Warhammer 40,000 be? And don't even start with the "burden of evidence because you claimed first" -bullgak but instead present this evidence, then. I've bought less miniatures this year than last year. I guess I've quit and never noticed, along with countless others?
Yep, I admit to trolling months ago ( is it half a year soon? )
You say someone criticizing something doesn't mean they are zealous. The fact you and a few others were zealous as hell is the reason you can be manipulated into taking it seriously, when someone says they can predict a companys future, and then using the supposedly failed magical vision as leverage ( zealously. ) If that isn't zeal, then nothing is. You guys ought to be chaplains.
Yoyoyo wrote: The only source I found claimed 500,000 active players worldwide and three times as many collectors. God knows where they got the stats though,
40% is surprising but the chairman does reference a 47% improvement on return on capital. Either way, jump in and help dig for information buddy, no need to stand on the sidelines!
I didn't claim there were less players, YOU claimed there are more. Once again you have no evidence whatsoever, so you're twisting the conversation and responding to my direct line of questioning by putting words in my mouth, then questioning those words I never said. Are you a politician by chance? You sound like one of Obama's press secretaries giving a 3 paragraph response to a simple yes or no question. However, just to indulge you in your little quest to derail this and distract from your wild claims with zero supporting evidence...
Reduced revenue during a time of increased release pace, rising prices and an overall market showing an upward trend is a fairly good indicator that less people are buying GW product. I guess in your alternate reality, its more likely that there's more people buying now, they're just buying a couple pots of paint a year. It's not like this is all guesswork. GW's financial reports are public and organizations like ICV2 track how much of each product line is being sold by contacting retailers. No, we don't know exactly how many people bought GW product this year compared to last. What we do know is that GW sold far less product. At the end of the day, does it really matter whether you have more, less or the same amount of customers when your revenue is tanking? If 1 person bought £100mil of GW product or 100,000,000 people each bought £1 of GW product the end result is the same. If that amount isn't enough to cover your costs, your business is failing. As with most things in life, the first step to solving the problem is admitting you have one. GW refuses to do this, which is why their revenue will continue to fall (despite your predictions otherwise or your proclamations that "there are more players than ever"). I've said this before, I believe to you; repeating that snow is black, the sky is green, grass is blue and water freezes at 47F loud enough and long enough does not in any way make it fact, no matter how badly you wish it were.
Yoyoyo wrote: The only source I found claimed 500,000 active players worldwide and three times as many collectors. God knows where they got the stats though,
Toofast wrote: Reduced revenue during a time of increased release pace, rising prices and an overall market showing an upward trend is a fairly good indicator that less people are buying GW product. I guess in your alternate reality, its more likely that there's more people buying now, they're just buying a couple pots of paint a year. It's not like this is all guesswork. GW's financial reports are public and organizations like ICV2 track how much of each product line is being sold by contacting retailers. No, we don't know exactly how many people bought GW product this year compared to last. What we do know is that GW sold far less product. At the end of the day, does it really matter whether you have more, less or the same amount of customers when your revenue is tanking? If 1 person bought £100mil of GW product or 100,000,000 people each bought £1 of GW product the end result is the same. If that amount isn't enough to cover your costs, your business is failing. As with most things in life, the first step to solving the problem is admitting you have one. GW refuses to do this, which is why their revenue will continue to fall (despite your predictions otherwise or your proclamations that "there are more players than ever"). I've said this before, I believe to you; repeating that snow is black, the sky is green, grass is blue and water freezes at 47F loud enough and long enough does not in any way make it fact, no matter how badly you wish it were.
Yeah, officially GW refuses admitting that there is a problem. I hope you don't seriously think they haven't admitted it internally despite some chairmans preamble propaganda directed at investors and other bits written in order to give a positive, firm image of the company ( which is what companies do ) because then it's you who is in an alternate dimension where official statements are the all encompassing truth.
I find it hilarious with some of you how paradoxical you are: You believe GW's official statements and data when it coincides with your personal bias and agenda, but should they officially state something positive or something you don't like, you deem it a lie. It's even more hilarious how you can't see it yourselves.
GW says they do no market research, are all about teenagers and miniatures. X believes them and uses it as a tool in arguments.
GW says they have no issues, that the downfall is only temporary, or anything relatively similiar. X doesn't believe them and uses it as a tool in arguments.
X is therefore a paradoxical idiot and there is no squirming away from it from a logical point of view, period.
I somehow have a feeling that in your argument regarding the "upward trend" be that measured however, it has not been taken into account that the smaller a company is the easier it is to grow, both in profit and size. GW's competitors and their revenue are but a fraction of theirs. Regarding your snow is black, the same goes for wishing to believe that reduced sales means people quitting. It doesn't, wishing wont make it so. And that's what I pointed out. Do you now register this? If not, here goes for the fourth time:
At the end of the day, does it really matter whether you have more, less or the same amount of customers when your revenue is tanking?
It matters when someone claims their revenue is tanking because of people quitting a game and nothing else, which is what I responded to. On a general level, no, it does not matter.
If after this you do not grasp that I was responding to this one specific claim, then I guess tough gak.
Toofast wrote: Reduced revenue during a time of increased release pace, rising prices and an overall market showing an upward trend is a fairly good indicator that less people are buying GW product. I guess in your alternate reality, its more likely that there's more people buying now, they're just buying a couple pots of paint a year. It's not like this is all guesswork. GW's financial reports are public and organizations like ICV2 track how much of each product line is being sold by contacting retailers. No, we don't know exactly how many people bought GW product this year compared to last. What we do know is that GW sold far less product. At the end of the day, does it really matter whether you have more, less or the same amount of customers when your revenue is tanking? If 1 person bought £100mil of GW product or 100,000,000 people each bought £1 of GW product the end result is the same. If that amount isn't enough to cover your costs, your business is failing. As with most things in life, the first step to solving the problem is admitting you have one. GW refuses to do this, which is why their revenue will continue to fall (despite your predictions otherwise or your proclamations that "there are more players than ever"). I've said this before, I believe to you; repeating that snow is black, the sky is green, grass is blue and water freezes at 47F loud enough and long enough does not in any way make it fact, no matter how badly you wish it were.
Yeah, officially GW refuses admitting that there is a problem. I hope you don't seriously think they haven't admitted it internally despite some chairmans preamble propaganda directed at investors and other bits written in order to give a positive, firm image of the company ( which is what companies do ) because then it's you who is in an alternate dimension where official statements are the all encompassing truth.
I find it hilarious with some of you how paradoxical you are: You believe GW's official statements and data when it coincides with your personal bias and agenda, but should they officially state something positive or something you don't like, you deem it a lie. It's even more hilarious how you can't see it yourselves.
GW says they do no market research, are all about teenagers and miniatures. X believes them and uses it as a tool in arguments.
GW says they have no issues, that the downfall is only temporary, or anything relatively similiar. X doesn't believe them and uses it as a tool in arguments.
X is therefore a paradoxical idiot and there is no squirming away from it from a logical point of view, period.
I somehow have a feeling that in your argument regarding the "upward trend" be that measured however, it has not been taken into account that the smaller a company is the easier it is to grow, both in profit and size. GW's competitors and their revenue are but a fraction of theirs. Regarding your snow is black, the same goes for wishing to believe that reduced sales means people quitting. It doesn't, wishing wont make it so. And that's what I pointed out. Do you now register this? If not, here goes for the fourth time:
At the end of the day, does it really matter whether you have more, less or the same amount of customers when your revenue is tanking?
It matters when someone claims their revenue is tanking because of people quitting a game and nothing else, which is what I responded to. On a general level, no, it does not matter.
If after this you do not grasp that I was responding to this one specific claim, then I guess tough gak.
Except I NEVER MADE THAT CLAIM. I claimed it's a good indicator, not a black and white fact or the only reason. YOU claimed that there are more people buying/playing than ever before. I asked for your data. You provided none, put words in my mouth and then argued against a point I never claimed (which seems to be par for the course when trying to have a debate with you). Say again, show me your data that more people are playing. If you can't do that (which we all know you can't, or you would've just done that instead of typing pages about a statement I never made), then I have nothing else to say.
Still waiting to hear his evidence that there are more players.
Fact: GW is losing sales.
Not a fact: GW is gaining players.
But we've all been down this road. RunicFin makes outlandish claims that he can't back up. Resorts to attacks such as "morons" and "Four Horsemen." And then he sidetracks the conversation to something else when people call him on it.
For the sake of getting back on track, let's skip to the end and say, GW is NOT gaining more players and they are losing sales. The argument here is: Are rubbish rules causing the loss of revenue?
No, you did not. Another user did, I didn't say it was you. I responded to his statement about "reduced sales = people quitting" only, and you then asked what does it matter what causes reduced sales. I then responded it matters when you respond to the specific statement of "reduced sales = people quitting" - which is quite obvious.
And I didn't put words in your mouth, you got the idea I said you made that very claim from your own head, don't blame me for your reading comprehension issues. Copypaste me the bit where I said it was you who claimed that "reduced sales = quitting the game" or shut up about it.
There are more players because wargaming is in an upward trend. Or do you believe that the reality is that the best selling tabletop wargame on the planet has less players than before in a time of an upward trend of wargaming, whereas the less popular games have more? Laughable.
MWHistorian wrote: But we've all been down this road. RunicFin makes outlandish claims that he can't back up. Resorts to attacks such as "morons" and "Four Horsemen." And then he sidetracks the conversation to something else when people call him on it.
Firstly, I didn't attack anyone first here, period. The conversation was sidetracked after 2 pages, fact. So how about you stop talking out of your arse. You're the master of intentional misinterpretation and sidetracking things from there - it's oxymoronic for you to to blame others for it. If you read the thread you wouldn't be making these claims that aren't even true.
Did you just state that no new people started playing Warhammer 40,000 this year for example ( seeing as someone starting the game 2 seconds ago means there are now more players than there were 3 seconds ago, unless someone quit inbetween ) or what might your timeframe for your claim be? What is your evidence for this outlandish claim?
Will you sidetrack the conversation instead of providing this evidence? If you don't provide said evidence, did you just do what you accuse me of, make an outlandish claim and then not back it up, therefore ending up completely paradoxical on all 3 accounts?
MWHistorian wrote: Still waiting to hear his evidence that there are more players.
Fact: GW is losing sales.
Not a fact: GW is gaining players.
But we've all been down this road. RunicFin makes outlandish claims that he can't back up. Resorts to attacks such as "morons" and "Four Horsemen." And then he sidetracks the conversation to something else when people call him on it.
For the sake of getting back on track, let's skip to the end and say, GW is NOT gaining more players and they are losing sales. The argument here is: Are rubbish rules causing the loss of revenue?
It is a fact that GW has lower revenues. It actually isn't a fact that there are fewer players for 40k. It might be. But we don't know, just like we don't actually know if there are more or less P3 or Infinitylayers either because sales != players. We don't even know the WHFB vs 40k split.
It IS a fact that there are WAY more people that want to play at my home than I would ever allow, and way more people who would like to play 40k with me than I would ever have time for. Two other facts: GW also produces models I like at a faster clip than I can paint (maybe if I quit my day job, lol), and I am pretty happy playing the game and modelling.
Oh yes, and my wife says I am not allowed to concert any more of the house into gaming purposes
So from a practical perspective and being totally self centered, the hobby is all good.
Talys wrote: It IS a fact that there are WAY more people that want to play at my home than I would ever allow, and way more people who would like to play 40k with me than I would ever have time for. Two other facts: GW also produces models I like at a faster clip than I can paint (maybe if I quit my day job, lol), and I am pretty happy playing the game and modelling.
Oh yes, and my wife says I am not allowed to concert any more of the house into gaming purposes
So from a practical perspective and being totally self centered, the hobby is all good.
I've noticed the same. The game still has flaws like it always has, it still requires cooperation with people to make more sensible, like it always has. There are also more fresh players in the areas I play than ever before. The tournaments and their coverages are also getting bigger and better each year, especially in terms of presentation and the "show" aspect of it all. Don't think they used to stream the top tables 6 years ago ( possible I missed it though. ) There are more releases than before, and counterintuitively to the "just teenagers are our customers" they are also publishing armies generally more in the interest of the more mature audience which is what Forgeworld usually does ( Adeptus Mechanicus. ) 7th edition is, afaic, better than 6th, the miniatures are still some of the best you can find and the universe too. The new codices aside from the wraiths mistake are actually fairly balanced against eachother. I get to play many times a week and participate in tournaments monthly if I so wish. Can't complain.
The game not being tailored to suit the needs of people who don't have friends, can't make any, can't join a group for god knows what reason and on a general level can't interact with strangers in a way that doesn't cause a hostile enviroment during a match is nothing odd. Most people are just fine, and when you do meet that rotten apple abusing the game, either bite your teeth, try to find a way to make him stop, don't play him, or my personal favorite, become better than him and crush him with his own tricks. Alternatively if you can't do any of those, quit the game. If you don't want to quit the game nor try any of the options mentioned above and instead choose to cause yourself suffering and complain about these very things on the internet without doing anything of the above, then all I can do is wonder what is wrong with you.
You had me until this part. That loaded first statement means you're actively a major detractor in the gaming hobby and you absolutely do not even fathom the depth of hobby outside of the narrow margin that will be 40k in the coming years. I hope you get out more and experience the wide variety of new and upcoming wonderful games.
The only thing rotten is how you're presenting yourself, from what I've seen.
You had me until this part. That loaded first statement means you're actively a major detractor in the gaming hobby and you absolutely do not even fathom the depth of hobby outside of the narrow margin that will be 40k in the coming years. I hope you get out more and experience the wide variety of new and upcoming wonderful games.
How does some people being unable to make their 40K hobby into a functioning entirety ( while others can, and with ease ) and then blaming the game for it make me a detractor? I'm sorry, that doesn't make any sense to me. I have more players willing to play almost daily that I can possibly spare the time to play with, and like I mentioned before I haven't had any issues even remotely similiar to some you read from here. Next to that, with that final condescending remark about going out more and experiencing the wide variety of new and upcoming games, how do you know what games I play? Have we met?
Aside from Warmachine/Hordes ofcourse, which I mentioned earlier. How do you know I don't fathom the hobby outside of 40K? You just presumed.
About presentation, this is the internet, and more specifically, DakkaDakka. It's rare a thread where it pays off to be all mushy.
No, you did not. Another user did, I didn't say it was you. I responded to his statement about "reduced sales = people quitting" only, and you then asked what does it matter what causes reduced sales. I then responded it matters when you respond to the specific statement of "reduced sales = people quitting" - which is quite obvious.
And I didn't put words in your mouth, you got the idea I said you made that very claim from your own head, don't blame me for your reading comprehension issues. Copypaste me the bit where I said it was you who claimed that "reduced sales = quitting the game" or shut up about it.
There are more players because wargaming is in an upward trend. Or do you believe that the reality is that the best selling tabletop wargame on the planet has less players than before in a time of an upward trend of wargaming, whereas the less popular games have more? Laughable.
MWHistorian wrote: But we've all been down this road. RunicFin makes outlandish claims that he can't back up. Resorts to attacks such as "morons" and "Four Horsemen." And then he sidetracks the conversation to something else when people call him on it.
Firstly, I didn't attack anyone first here, period. The conversation was sidetracked after 2 pages, fact. So how about you stop talking out of your arse. You're the master of intentional misinterpretation and sidetracking things from there - it's oxymoronic for you to to blame others for it. If you read the thread you wouldn't be making these claims that aren't even true.
Just because wargaming is in an upward trend doesn't mean GW is. Guns are in an upward trend too. Remington, one of the largest gun manufacturers in existence, has been closing down production facilities and subsidiaries because they're losing business to the other brands responsible for the growth in the overall market. To say that "wargaming is going up, so GW must be going up too" is just asinine and a much greater leap than saying "GW's revenue and profit are down, that probably means less people are buying their products".
Automatically Appended Next Post: Also, yes I do believe that the less popular wargames have more players relative to several years ago. The ICV2 numbers back this up. Warhammer 40k and fantasy were always #1 and 2 respectively on the ICV2 quarterly sales report. Now WFB has dropped out of the top 5 and 40k is quickly losing ground to WMH and X wing.
who don't know how to write codices well. Their focus is lost on the actual gaming, and are only a toy selling company.
.
It's not just balancing issues, it's the constant dance of power creep and nerfing, combined with tossing in new stuff that completely wrecks whatever semblance of balance the game had.
